Douglas Alexander: I can give my right hon. Friend exactly the assurance that he seeks. Budget support for Ethiopia was withheld in response to the political crisis in 2005, but we do not want the poor to suffer in Ethiopia as a consequence of the actions of Government. That is why, through the protection of basic services programme, we have continued to support development efforts in Ethiopia. In the last year alone, 1.2 million more children attended primary school. Over 70 per cent. of the population of Ethiopia's children are now in school, and all households in malaria areas will have insecticide-treated bed nets by the end of this year. Those are just two examples of our continuing commitment to the people of Ethiopia.

Gordon Brown: I see that the right hon. Gentleman has given up on the health service now. Let us come to the European issue. In 1992, every member of that shadow Cabinet refused a referendum on a far more significant treaty. The Foreign Secretary voted against a referendum on Maastricht. Why is this treaty different? It is different because it is not a constitutional treaty; it is an amending treaty. Why is it different? It is different because we won a protocol in the charter of rights, we got an opt-in on justice and home affairs, we got an emergency brake on social security, and we have exempted the security issues. All those changes have been brought about in the past few months, and that is why not one Government in Europe—apart from the one in Ireland, which is bound constitutionally to have a referendum on anything—is proposing a referendum on this treaty. Just as those on the Conservative Front Bench voted against a referendum in 1992, they should have the honesty to vote against it now.  [Interruption.]

David Evennett: Is the Prime Minister aware of the anger and concern about the proposed changes to hospital provision in south-east London, particularly the cuts and downgrades proposed to our own hospital, Queen Mary's, Sidcup? Can he confirm that the consultation will not be a sham and that he will actually listen to what local people say—or is this just another example London being let down by Labour?

Alan Johnson: The chief scientific adviser and his Foresight team have today published the report, "Tackling Obesities: Future Choices", which pulls together the latest evidence and expertise on this vital issue and seeks to answer the question: how can we deliver a sustainable response to obesity over the next 40 years? Foresight exists to challenge existing policy, and the report is nothing if not challenging.
	The report predicts that, on current trends, by 2050, 60 per cent. of men, 50 per cent. of women and 26 per cent. of children and young people will be obese. Incidents of type 2 diabetes are set to rise by 70 per cent.; attacks of stroke by 30 per cent.; and cases of coronary heart disease by 20 per cent. Obesity-related diseases will cost the nation an extra £45.5 billion a year.
	The implications for those individuals who are directly affected are profound. An obese young man who remains obese, as most are likely to do, will die, on average, 13 years younger than his peer group. However, the report is based on current trends. Our destiny need not be pre-ordained, and we can buck those trends, provided that we are all prepared to take the necessary steps. Indeed, the work assembled for this project gives the UK a platform to become a global leader in tackling a problem that is challenging policy makers across the world.
	In recent years, we have focused more closely on child obesity. Sure Start children's centres provide parents with high-quality health advice in the crucial pre-school years. We now intend to start earlier still with the proposed nutritional grants for pregnant mothers. Over the past three years, the share of children on the school fruit and vegetable scheme who are eating "five a day" has increased from just over a quarter to just under a half. We have introduced tough new nutritional standards; we are investing almost £100 million a year to improve school food; and we have added an entitlement to cooking lessons on the national curriculum. We have established the national child measurement programme, which will provide the largest database of its kind in the world on children's weight. In 2004, only half of all pupils did two hours of high-quality PE and sport every week; today the figure is 86 per cent. We are now raising our sights so that every child has the chance of five hours sport every week, backed by a further £100 million of additional investment.
	Working with the Food Standards Agency and the food industry, we have introduced front-of-pack labelling, and we have worked with Ofcom to prohibit television advertising of foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar during children's programmes. This was a bold measure, but we are determined to go further if the evidence supports the need to do so. We will therefore be reviewing the impact of the restrictions on the nature and balance of food promotion to all children, across all media.
	The Foresight report endorses interventions such as these, but argues for an even bolder approach. The report says that although personal responsibility is a crucial determinant of our body weight, our environment also plays a vital role. The chilling reality is that modern life makes us overweight. As Sir David King puts it:
	"We evolved in a world of relative food scarcity and hard physical work—now energy dense food is abundant and labour saving technologies abound".
	Modern transport systems, sedentary jobs and convenience food make life more comfortable, but also lie at the heart of this dilemma. In a sense, we are victims of our economic success. The pace of technological revolution outstrips human evolution.
	Tackling this problem calls for a fundamental shift in approach. Although the report projects us forward 50 years, it does of course require action today, and many of the areas identified in the report cannot be tackled successfully by Government alone. I hope this report will trigger the national debate that is essential if we are to rise to the challenge.
	The report highlights the responsibilities of employers to look after their employees' health, which is not just in the interests of their staff, but is also in the interests of the business: enhancing performance and improving productivity. The report also shows how small changes to everyday routines can make a real difference. For instance, employers might look at providing loans for bikes, not just season tickets; subsidising gym membership, not just canteens; and even putting out fruit at meetings, rather than biscuits. But the report also points to more substantial measures—for instance, with the built environment. Local authorities must ensure that healthy living is built into the infrastructure of our towns and cities so that planning systems improve our health and well-being.
	The report examines the availability of, and exposure to, obesogenic food and drinks. Front-of-pack labelling is now increasingly prevalent, but industry has yet fully to embrace the colour coding system. There is emerging evidence that the FSA's labelling system is more effective at informing consumers and I want to work with the industry to see this adopted, but the report underlines the expectation for change. I have also asked the FSA to conduct an immediate investigation into the use of trans fats, to examine whether there is more we should ask the food industry to do in this area.
	The report talks about the importance of targeted public health interventions. There are regional disparities in the prevalence of obesity and I hope that primary care trusts will look at what more can be done through advice and training in health consumption and activity to help obese people to achieve sustainable reductions in their weight. Underpinning all this is an acknowledgment that Government must do more. We will develop a comprehensive cross-government strategy on obesity to respond to the evidence in this report. Because of the need for concerted action on a number of fronts, I will convene a cross-governmental ministerial group to guide our approach.
	We will continue to focus particularly on children. More than 80 per cent. of obese 10 to 14-year-olds remain obese into adulthood. As part of the spending review, we have already set our ambition to reverse the growth in obesity so that, by 2020, we reduce the proportion of overweight and obese children to the levels of the year 2000. Ensuring that our health service is as focused on prevention as it is on treatment is already a priority, and obesity epitomises the need for that change.
	In the past, tackling obesity has always been regarded as a matter of personal willpower, but as the report starkly demonstrates, people in the UK are not more gluttonous than previous generations and individual action alone will not be sufficient. Obesity is a consequence of abundance, convenience and underlying biology. Solutions will not be found in exhortations for greater individual responsibility, or in what the report calls the futility of isolated initiatives.
	Let us begin the national debate here in Parliament today, and let us use the report to forge the consensus that will allow the UK to pioneer the new long-term integrated approach that the issue desperately requires. I commend the statement to the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Indeed, I am grateful—I hope that the House is grateful—to all those who worked on the Foresight programme and for their report.
	The Foresight programme makes a clear argument: our human biology has not much changed, but our environment and our society have. We lead less active lives; we enjoy plentiful energy-dense foods. It has become normal to be overweight. It will become normal to be obese if we do not act now. Our response to this needs to change or the slide into obesity will create an epidemic of disease and the national health service will not cope.
	The public health Minister, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), called this a "wake up call". If it is, the Government have been asleep for the past decade while the alarm bells have been ringing. When the Labour Government came to office, they abolished the existing target on obesity that was set in the 1992 "Health of the Nation" White Paper. In 2004, the Health Committee's report on obesity said:
	"On present trends, obesity will soon surpass smoking as the greatest cause of premature loss of life."
	In 2004, the Government abandoned their previous stance and set a target to halt the rise in childhood obesity by 2010. Since then, the rates have continued to go up, and what has been the Government's response to that? To push the target back from 2010 to 2020. Frankly, we can see why they have failed. The Secretary of State talked about the child measurement programme, but what is the point of a programme that does not lead to any action? Children are measured so that there is an ability to take subsequent action. This is the way in which the Government work: targets as a substitute for achievement when what we really need is action—not gimmicks or one-off initiatives, but a sustained plan. As the Foresight programme makes clear, that plan has to tackle the whole map of factors that contribute to rising levels of obesity.
	The plan must start with nutrition in pregnancy and early years. There is no evidence that the Secretary of State's voucher scheme alone will work. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has proposed guidelines for early years nutrition and all those proposals need to be supported. The plan must include the reformulation of foods. My colleague in the European Parliament, John Bowis, earlier this year led a parliamentary initiative to ban synthetic trans fats in Europe.
	As the Government said earlier this year, saturated fats are the greater public health hazard. We need a supply chain initiative that will reduce fats, sugar and salt progressively and substantially. We must also promote good diet, targeting certain junk foods—today the Prime Minister called them "unacceptable foods". Nutrient profiling that stigmatises all cheese as a junk food just forfeits credibility.
	Three years ago, when the Government published their public health White Paper, I argued for a combined traffic light and guideline daily amount system of front-pack food labelling. The Government got it wrong then, and now we have several confusing labelling systems. Will the Secretary of State today agree that the Government will back a combined traffic light and GDA labelling scheme?
	Will the Secretary of State commit today to a national research centre on obesity? Will he commit to a nationwide programme to identify cardiovascular risk? Will he commit to supporting proven exercise referral schemes? Will he commit to ring-fenced public health budgets so that we cannot carry on seeing such budgets being raided to meet national health service deficits? Will he explain to the House why the number of public health staff has halved? Will he explain why primary care trusts are not on track to have trained school nurses in place by 2010, as was promised? Will he tell the House why the lottery funding for community sport has been halved, when half the population do no sport and take no active recreation?
	Today, the Secretary of State said that he will develop a comprehensive cross-Government strategy on obesity. Three years ago his predecessor said at the Dispatch Box that he would develop a cross-Government campaign on obesity. The words do not change, but delivery never takes place. For a decade, the Government have presided over an escalating public health crisis. A succession of gimmicks has had little impact. There has never been the comprehensive action that is required. The issue is not just about individual choices; it is about social responsibility—our responsibility for our health. It is about stronger families that give young people the guidance and self-esteem necessary to make healthy choices and lead healthy lives, stronger communities that promote activity and sport, and corporate social responsibility to promote good diet and cuts to fats, sugar and salt, and to ensure that affordable diets are on offer in the most deprived areas.
	There is an analogy to climate change. In both cases, we need a cultural shift, technological innovation, a framework of legislation, and Government action, and we need individuals to respond. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party have led the argument for a greener Britain through social responsibility. I can today commit the next Conservative Government to meeting our obesity and public health challenges, through social responsibility, to ensure a safer, greener and healthier Britain.

Alan Johnson: Well, I just think that the report deserves discussion in Parliament, rather than a simple Punch and Judy show.  [Interruption.] Well, I do believe that. I believe that obesity is one of the long-term issues on which politicians have an obligation to forge a consensus. I do not expect the Opposition to be in power for at least another 20 or 30 years, but undoubtedly Governments will change. Undoubtedly the Opposition will be in power at some stage over the coming years—I leave aside the Liberal Democrats. We must forge a consensus on the issue that allows the British people to believe that whatever Government comes along, there is a comprehensive, integrated strategy to deal with what the Foresight report says is one of the most profound dangers and threats that the world faces.
	Having said that, I will go through the points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) before I end my response by saying that I agree with much of what he said about the need to tackle the issue of good diet and the need to involve Ofcom more closely. Any objective look at what has happened in the past few years would suggest that, as the Foresight report recognises, the Government have taken a number of measures that are crucial to tackling the issues, and child obesity in particular. The first thing to say is that we commissioned the report. We set up the Foresight unit specifically to look at the issues long-term. Secondly, we introduced the tough new nutritional standards that have been in place since September as regards the rubbish that was in vending machines in our schools. Over the past three years, the share of children on the school fruit and vegetable scheme who eat five a day has gone up from a quarter to just under half. Some 86 per cent. of school children now do at least two hours of high-quality sport or physical education. The Department for Transport is investing £15 million in the national cycling network, and 450 schools are due to benefit from that. We put £1 billion more into sport in this country. All of those measures and more are important, but that brings us back to the Foresight group's comment about the futility of isolated initiatives. What we need is much greater integration, and the Government need to do more in that regard as well, but we need to forge a political consensus on the matter across the House.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) says that we have abandoned the target for 2010. We had a fairly modest target of stopping the rise in childhood obesity by 2010. As part of a discussion of the latest round of public service agreements, and educated by the early draft of the Foresight report, we decided to be far more ambitious and say that rather than halting the rise, we should reverse it to 2000 levels. That will take longer than 2010, which is why the aim is to achieve the target by 2020.
	The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the national weighing and measuring programme is right. I agree that we need to give that a legislative push. From the early results, it looks as though we are getting about 90 per cent. compliance, but that must be properly tested.
	I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about ring-fenced budgets. I am surprised by his remarks. Opposition Members have been speaking about the need for the NHS to be separated from politicians, with no targets and with the money being handed down and local trusts allowed to get on with it. The right approach is for us to give the money out to health trusts and to make them responsible for dealing with the issue, ensuring that there are indicative measures. The proper place to put the emphasis on public health is through the operating framework. We will do that at the end of the year.
	The hon. Gentleman's other point—on public health staff—is a hardy perennial, and I was disappointed that he raised it in this debate. The number of nurses working in primary and community care settings has increased by 31,500 or 40 per cent. since 1997. That includes a 35 per cent. increase in the number of school nurses, so the number of people working on health in communities has increased enormously, as has the budget for public health and throughout the health service. All our aims are predicated on the massive increase in investment that we have put into the health service since 1997.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about where the focus needs to be now. Indeed, I dealt with that in the statement. We need to ensure that we go further on colour coding and that we talk to the industry. We do not want to be attacked for unnecessary regulation. We want to persuade the industry, with the benefit of the report, that we all have a responsibility. Of course the Government have a huge responsibility, but so do others. If the Foresight report does not point us in the right direction, nothing will.

Norman Lamb: The humour from the Conservative Benches is wonderful, but the guffaws are slightly forced.
	I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of the statement. He is right that the report must be taken seriously. Unless we take decisive action, the consequences for people's health could be devastating, given all the health consequences of obesity such as diabetes and heart conditions, and will bankrupt the NHS. It is important to stress that we should all take personal responsibility as individuals and as parents. Perhaps the three of us Front-Bench spokesmen should take part in the Great London run next year. I invite the Secretary of State to join me. I did it this year, and the Lib Dem health team is in pretty live condition— [Interruption]. Mr. Speaker, come to my aid. There is an awful lot of noise in the background.

Norman Lamb: It is also right that we should hold the Government to account for their action or inaction. Is this not a case of "here we go again"? In 2004 the White Paper promised a long-term strategy to tackle obesity, and Wanless urged joined-up thinking. In a high profile announcement the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who was a Health Minister at the time, was put in charge of tackling obesity. Now, after three years of inaction, what do the Government propose? A three-year comprehensive strategy on obesity. I know that the Government are famous for repeating announcements, but to take three years to repeat the announcement seems to take the biscuit.

Alan Johnson: I do not think the report is an example of that at all. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) welcomes the report, so I assume he has read it. It was not I who said that it gives us the opportunity to lead the world on the issue. The report itself states that the work assembled for the project gives the UK a platform to become a global leader in tackling a problem that is challenging policy makers across the world. It points out that nowhere across the world is there a comprehensive strategy to tackle the problem. It identifies some important community initiatives, such as the North Karelia project in Finland, which had remarkable success. The report suggests that we consider setting up a similar project in a couple of regions or cities in the UK.
	The report makes it clear that no one has a magic bullet and that there is no single answer. There is no use waiting for some kind of medical technology to produce a magic pill or tackle the issue. That is not going to happen. The report concentrates our attention on the need to rise above the political fray and to accept that mistakes have been made, although I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The science has moved on and our approach has moved on. One of the reasons why we commissioned the report and sponsored it is that we recognised that we were running to catch up on the evidence that the scientists were producing on the need to tackle obesity.
	We can consider various initiatives. The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned health inequalities. The report states that the Government's action in tackling health inequalities and climate change could help, because energy saving could help to encourage people to exercise more.  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position—you two are such chums, Mr. Speaker, on unhelpful comments from the back—that the statement was silent on that. In my statement to Parliament, I set out what is in the report, picking out some of the issues. The statement the day before yesterday—there does seem to be one almost daily—pointed out that we will introduce 100 GP practices into the 25 per cent. most deprived areas to try and deal with the problem of under-doctored areas.
	It points to a series of measures that need to be taken, and tackling health inequalities is crucial. The hon. Gentleman talks about the day-to-day banter that we sometimes have, but the report will have an important role in tackling these problems in the longer term.
	The reduction in the take-up of school meals has also been mentioned, so let me point out yet again that the city I represent followed Finland's lead and became the first to try to tackle health inequalities and problems with educational attainment by saying that every primary school pupil should be able to have a free breakfast, free fruit and free lunch. What is more, we did that before Jamie Oliver, and it had a remarkable impact. The programme is due to be assessed by Hull university, yet the incoming Lib Dem authority cancelled the scheme this year—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Yes, they abolished it. So much for free school meals as a means of tackling deprivation. The Lib Dems in Hull say that we have to introduce this nationally, but it is not a problem for Kingston upon Thames; it is problem for Kingston upon Hull, so the local authority should be involved in tackling it. It is a disgrace that the programme has been abandoned.
	Putting all that aside, I hope that the Liberal Democrats—whichever leader is in charge of them this week, next week or the week after—will engage fully in the debate. I believe that the Liberal Democrats have a huge contribution to make to tackling some of these long-term problems—and the Conservative party does as well. As for the Great London run, I will consult shadow spokespersons to ensure that we all give the same answer!

Alan Johnson: I could not agree more with the hon. Lady on one very important point. The Foresight report says that this is not just a question of individual responsibility, although it does not suggest that it is not an element. What the authors want to tackle is the view that the problem is merely about people who eat too much, and has nothing to do with the way in which society is organised. They point out that because our biology has not kept pace with technological advances, the amount of energy that we take in is not matched by that amount that we expend. That is an important point, particularly because obesity gives rise to bullying, which affects youngsters in this position.
	The hon. Lady is, however, absolutely right about the amount of information that is available. What we must ask is why, if all that information is there, people are not acting on it. She is also right about the need for parental responsibility. The fact that mothers were passing fish and chips through the railings at that school in Yorkshire is thoroughly depressing. Ensuring that youngsters become used to a healthy diet from a young age depends on their having that healthy diet at home as well. There is a two-way education process, involving parents as well as others. I think that the hon. Lady's question, which will be encapsulated in  Hansard, is the very first important contribution to the debate.

Julie Kirkbride: I was heartened by the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). He appeared to downgrade the role of personal responsibility in his statement when he said, "In the past, tackling obesity has always been regarded as a matter of personal willpower". Is it not clear that we all learn and that we do not need a red light on a packet of crisps to tell us that they are fattening? There is no reason why we should not have the occasional packet of crisps, but if a parent gives a child a packet of crisps at breakfast, morning break, lunch, tea and supper, the child will clearly have an obesity problem. Is the Secretary of State perhaps a little nervous of making it clearer to the public that it is first and foremost up to them, not Governments, to change their personal behaviour?

Alan Johnson: It is not either/or, and individual responsibility alone will not work. If the hon. Gentleman has a chance to read the report, which was written by eminent scientists, he will see that it makes it clear that food labelling and advertising form a crucial part of tackling the problem. In my view, the reason why advertising restrictions should go much further is that about 70 per cent. of children watch television programmes outside the traditional children viewing times. I think that that is making a big contribution and will make a bigger contribution, but it is just part of the answer. The hon. Gentleman says that it is either/or, but that does not take us any further forward in the debate.

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that at 9.30 this morning there was a very important Westminster Hall debate on a subject close to the heart of the Labour left wing and the Liberal Democrat party in particular, namely, arms exports. For the first time in such a debate that I can recall, there was no Front-Bench spokesman present from the Liberal Democrat party and, needless to say, there was no Back Bencher either. Given that the Liberal Democrats persistently like to style their Front-Bench spokesmen as shadow Secretaries of State, will you clarify once and for all that they are no such thing and that, therefore, if they wish to continue absenting themselves from debates, it will be welcomed by Government and Opposition alike?

Peter Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is only a gentle point of order, but I wonder whether you have had a chance to look at the packaging material involved in the announcement that the Secretary of State for Health has just made. At a time when we are all trying to cut down on wasteful packaging, is it sensible to have the document in a half-empty box, in which a lot of junk food could probably be accommodated? Is not obese packaging the last thing we need?

Mark Hendrick: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the accessing of Pension Protection Fund benefits by people under the age of 50 who are suffering from a terminal illness; and for connected purposes.
	For nearly all of us, contributing to a pension will be the most significant financial decision we ever make. Throughout our working life until the day we die, we will either be building or receiving a pension. Contributing to a scheme provides us with security for the future. It enables us to provide essential items such as food, warmth and housing, as well as allowing us fully to participate in society, economically and socially.
	It is therefore distressing that, earlier this decade, thousands of people saw their savings vanish after their pension schemes went bust and were unable to meet their commitments. To avoid a repetition of that, the Government in April 2005 established the Pension Protection Fund under the Pensions Act 2004. Funded by an annual levy on defined-benefit and hybrid pension schemes, the PPF provides compensation to those whose pension schemes have become insolvent.
	The fund has proved to be an invaluable safety net to thousands of workers who would otherwise have lost substantial pension savings. However, as a compensation scheme, the PPF has its own set of rules, which are set out in part 2 and schedule 7 to the Pensions Act and in the numerous statutory instruments made under it. Legislation specifies the level of compensation to be provided, and that is not necessarily the same as the person would have received had the pension scheme not wound up. In short, the PPF does not mirror the rules of individual pension schemes, and it is for that reason that I am proposing the Bill.
	Significantly, the fund contrasts with final salary pension schemes and does not allow early payment of pension savings, for whatever reason, to anyone under the age of 50. For a specific set of people under 50 years of age—those diagnosed with a terminal illness—those rules are simply unreasonable. It is my belief that legislation should be amended so as to lift the current bar on payments to those aged under 50, if they are terminally ill.
	As the Incomes Data Services pensions service explains, many pension schemes will allow unreduced early payment of a pension on ill health grounds. It states:
	"In a final salary scheme, members who retire early often find that their pension is reduced to take account of the fact that it will be paid for longer. But if early retirement is due to ill health or incapacity an immediate pension is usually payable and this is unlikely to be reduced for early payment."
	A parliamentary written answer confirmed PPF rules regarding ill health pensions. It stated:
	"compensation to scheme members who have been awarded an ill health pension is calculated in the same way as compensation to any other scheme member of the same age.
	There are no provisions to enable scheme members to claim ill health pensions from the Pension Protection Fund once the PPF has assumed responsibility for a scheme.
	However, any scheme member may take early payment of their compensation at a capped level of 90 per cent. from age 50, subject to actuarial reduction."—[ Official Report, 21 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1679W.]
	As well as provoking inevitable feelings of grief, anger and loss, having a terminal illness can be expensive, often in ways that may not have been expected. That includes the cost of prescriptions, a special diet, child care or travel to hospital. In addition, money may be needed to make adjustments to an individual's home or to pay for making out or amending a will.
	It might easily be the case that people in their 30s and 40s could have made anything between 15 and 30 years of payments into a scheme but do not qualify to receive benefits under the PPF rules, even though their original scheme would have paid out. For anyone aged under 50 and terminally ill, savings taken on by the PPF simply disappear. Only when an individual dies will payment be made to their spouse or civil partner. That situation is set to get worse in the next few years. In a fact sheet on early payment of compensation, the PPF confirms that before April 2010 the earliest age at which payment can be made will be rise from 50 to 55, to comply with the Finance Act 2004.
	The PPF covers 10 former pension schemes, but many more schemes are undergoing assessment. It is estimated that by the end of 2007-08, the PPF is likely to be responsible for an additional 65 schemes. Some 100,000 employees are members of schemes currently being assessed to see if they qualify to be rescued. Among them are 38,000 former Turner and Newall employees, whose scheme failed after the engineering company went into administration in 2007.
	The Turner and Newall case provides a good example of why change to existing legislation is so necessary. That company, once the world's largest manufacturer of asbestos, ran factories in Rochdale, Washington, Widnes and Trafford Park, where many employees worked with asbestos every day. Working with asbestos can lead to asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma. Employees were never told of the dangers to their health, and hundreds have been badly affected by working with asbestos products. Sadly, it is not difficult to imagine that some might well develop a terminal illness before they reach the age of 50. If that is the case and if the PPF covers Turner and Newall's pension scheme, terminally ill employees under 50 would not be entitled to a penny of compensation. When Lord Whitty recently raised this issue in the other place—I refer Members to column 121 of the record of the House of Lords debates of 6 June 2007—the Government argued that existing legislation ensures the PPF is uncomplicated and provides greater certainty about both payment levels and the affordability of the fund.
	The financial assistance scheme makes payments to individuals diagnosed as terminally ill on provision of evidence that they are unlikely to live longer than six months. The six-months criterion is very harsh and it is extremely difficult for doctors to give any indication of precisely how long a patient might live. That period should therefore be extended to 12 months.
	It might be useful to look at the cost incurred by the FAS in paying compensation to terminally ill individuals. When I contacted the FAS recently, I was told that that information was not recorded. Similarly, the Office for National Statistics advised me that pension schemes rarely document payments to terminally ill members, as that occurs so rarely. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the cost of paying out to terminally ill claimants is somewhat modest, if it is not currently recorded for the FAS. Basic logic supports that assumption when one considers that pensions for the terminally ill are paid for a shorter period due to their reduced life expectancy. The FAS might also provide a useful model with regard to administration and process.
	In respect of eligibility, a definition of terminal illness could be based on that used by other appropriate organisations. The Association of British Insurers uses the following definition in their best practice guide to critical illness:
	"Advanced or rapidly progressing incurable illness where, in the opinion of an attending Consultant and our Chief Medical Officer, the life expectancy is no greater than 12 months."
	Appeals against decisions could be referred to the PPF ombudsman, as is currently the practice for eligibility appeals. Of course, the precise definition of eligibility can be discussed and drawn up with the PPF board. The important point is that ill health benefits are allowed to be paid, which can only be enabled once existing legislation is amended.
	The experience of the FAS and the lack of data held regarding terminal illness and pension schemes suggest that the PPF will not be inundated with requests for early payment based on ill health. That, together with the relative ease of determining an individual's state of health via medical certification, suggests that the task of assessing and processing the extra applications would not be excessively burdensome.
	The proposed change is relatively modest. The Pensions Act 2004 should be amended, and individuals who are certified as terminally ill and aged under 50 should be allowed to access their savings as they would have done had their scheme not gone bust. In order not to provide too broad a provision, it could be restricted by reference to the discretion of the PPF board. This modest amendment would be of enormous significance to individuals in their last precious days. I ask the Government to consider extending the safety net to those who would draw immense comfort from it.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Hendrick, Mrs. Janet Dean, Barbara Keeley, Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. Elliot Morley, Jim Dowd, Lynda Waltho, Mr. John Heppell, Tom Levitt, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Neil Gerrard and John Mann.

James Paice: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the swift action taken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to impose movement controls when foot and mouth was first confirmed on 3rd August, in contrast to the Government's failures in 2001; is alarmed that the outbreak originated from a laboratory site financed, licensed and inspected by the Government; notes that warnings about the inadequacies of the facilities at Pirbright were ignored; condemns this negligent approach to biosecurity; urges the Government to accept its responsibility for the situation facing farmers caused by the subsequent controls which for many has been compounded by the outbreak of bluetongue disease; and demands that the regulatory body for facilities using dangerous pathogens should be fully independent of the facilities' major customers.
	I remind the House of my interest declared in the register.
	For those of us who were involved in the catastrophe of 2001, the news on 3 August of another foot and mouth outbreak was a body blow. To be fair to the Secretary of State, he was open and helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), myself and affected colleagues. He gave us access to his vets, and he and the Minister for the South East kept us informed. We are genuinely grateful for that collaboration. One should also point out that much of what happened predated the Secretary of State's appointment, but as is so often the case on such occasions, he was the unfortunate person left holding the parcel when the music stopped. I also acknowledge the swift action that was taken to clamp down on the disease by banning animal movements—a welcome contrast to the costly delays of 2001.
	Early on Saturday 4 August, a farmer telephoned me and pointed out that the outbreak was near Pirbright. My immediate reaction was, "So what? That's just a coincidence." How wrong I was. Nobody realised then that this had been a disaster waiting to happen for five years and that the trail of incompetence led all the way to Downing street. As far back as 2002, an Institute for Animal Health review, commissioned by its owners the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, stated:
	"Some of the laboratories are not close to the standard that would be expected in a modern biomedical facility."
	We also know from the Spratt report that from 2003 there had been concern
	"that pipes were old and needed replacing, but after much discussion between the Institute, Merial and DEFRA, money had not been made available."
	The report also contains a letter from Merial dated 20 July 2004 setting out specifications for improvements to the drainage and referring to an unspecified quote for the work. The reply from DEFRA simply stated that the proposals would appear to meet DEFRA standards for the safe transfer of the waste. That letter was dated 2 August 2004. Yet last week the Secretary of State told the House that
	"until the state of the drains was drawn to our attention, and everybody else's, as a result of the HSE investigation, nobody thought that they were in such a condition. That happens to be the truth."—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 44.]
	As there is now incontrovertible evidence that DEFRA knew about the state of the drains as far back as 2004, will the Secretary of State explain how he can claim that it did not know until September 2007?
	In Spratt's final remarks, he says:
	"There was evidence of a lack of urgency and ownership of risk at all levels, resulting in the failure to take appropriate decisions on the funding for essential improvements in safety critical infrastructure. This was particularly documented in the series of letters and reports from the biological safety officer of the Institute in his attempts over four years to get agreement on funding for the replacement of the effluent pipes."
	Spratt also made it clear that DEFRA inspectors had confirmed that the drainage system was part of the category 4 containment system. He said that the pipes were old and appeared not to have been subject to regular, thorough inspection. Even during the past 18 months, there had been two incidents—both reported to DEFRA—where virus was released into the public sewer. So we have a catalogue of reports, recommendations and pleas for help regarding the drainage system. The Secretary of State cannot claim that DEFRA did not know. Some people certainly did, and the House should be told who they are.
	However, it does not stop there. We find that in the years following 2002—with just one exception—DEFRA cut funding to the institute. As Spratt said, money had not been available. In January this year, the director of the institute told Radio 4:
	"We are trying to deliver a Rolls-Royce service for surveillance in the UK but really we're being funded more and more at the level of a Ford Cortina. Essentially, we are flying by the seat of our pants."
	Last week, the Secretary of State claimed that the vehicles were on the site
	"Because work is under way to spend the money on renewing the facilities at Pirbright. Some £31 million of that money has already been spent".—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 44.]
	Yes, £31 million, out of a Pirbright redevelopment scheme fund totalling £121 million, is indeed a lot of money, but it is not actually relevant. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey, the Minister for Science and Innovation said:
	"Tenders for the drainage scheme of around £220,000 were received in October 2006."—[ Official Report, 1 October 2007; Vol. 463, c. 2346W.]
	That work was approved in March and commenced in July. On 5 September, inspectors confirmed that the work had been completed. I quote:
	"The institute has already completed relining of the effluent pipes with a polyester lining, blocked off disused drains and sealed the manholes."
	So for £220,000 and six weeks' work, the disaster to the British farming industry could have been avoided.
	However, DEFRA has another role. Under the specified animal pathogens order, it has to license such facilities. That includes meeting its own containment requirements, which the health and safety report clearly states were not met. Yet in December 2006, DEFRA inspected Pirbright, and according to Spratt,
	"some issues relating to bio security were identified".
	I remind the Secretary of State of Spratt's statement that the pipes did not appear to have been subject to regular, thorough inspection.
	So why will the Government not publish that report? Is it because it is clear that the licence should not have been renewed? It seems odd that, despite the drains having been repaired, the licence is now suspended. Talk about closing the stable door after the cow has been shot! Are we really facing a foot and mouth outbreak for the second time in seven years because a facility had been licensed by DEFRA that should not have been? What is really hypocritical is that, if this had been a dairy farm or a shop selling food, it would have been prevented immediately from continuing in business until the problems were put right.
	We know that DEFRA knew about the state of the drains four or five years ago. We know that it failed to fund the improvements—indeed, it cut the funding. Despite that, it went ahead and continued to license facilities that were rotten. It has cost the taxpayer well over £20 million, and rising. It has cost the English farming industry at least £100 million, and rising, and for Scottish and Welsh farmers the situation is just as serious. The potential damage, especially to our uplands, could be devastating.
	What farmers need to know is, who is going to pay the price? When will somebody in DEFRA be accountable for this latest fiasco? Who will ultimately carry the can? Will it be the Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, cut the funding? Will it be the various Secretaries of State who ignored the warnings? Will it be the institute, or some inspector? No, Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that, as always with this Government, it will never be their fault. It is never their responsibility. Never resign, blame somebody else—that is the culture. The can, of course, is being carried—by the poor farmers up and down the country who cannot sell their stock, buy new stock, pay their bills or see a positive future. Already, farmers are deciding to quit the industry. They can take the weather; they can take decoupling; they can even take the vagaries of the market place, but they cannot—and nor should they—take the negligence of an incompetent Government.

James Paice: My next sentence was going to be, and will be, that DEFRA appeared to assume that every farmer spent their whole time studying the internet; I have obviously known my hon. Friend too long, or he has known me too long.
	There was also confusion about footpath closures: whether to close them, and whether or not they were closed. There was no contingency plan to deal with casualty and dead animals at the hottest time of the year. Later, during the second cluster, we heard of different policies in different places: cattle killed on one farm, but not the sheep; goats being missed between adjoining slaughtered flocks; and, worst of all, the shooting of cattle from helicopters because they had broken out of a pen in the evening.
	That raises the issue of why the country was declared free of foot and mouth only for further outbreaks to occur just days later. Last week, the Secretary of State said that infected premises 5 had had the disease for
	"three or possibly four weeks".—[ Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 48.]
	However, he said that he was not pointing the finger at anyone. Is that because of statements by the owner of premises 5 that DEFRA inspectors had been on the farm and missed the disease? Is it because by 20 September it was clear that this was linked to outbreak one and that it should have been followed up, but was not?
	The Secretary of State cannot say that DEFRA emerges with credit from the handling of this outbreak. There is no getting away from the fact that it was handled better than last time, but it would have taken a superhuman effort to have done worse. The Prime Minister says that the public will judge him on what he did on foot and mouth disease. He is right that he will be judged, but it will not happen in the way that he imagines.

Hilary Benn: In the Government's response to all of these reports, I accepted the recommendations that were made. They are being implemented and an improvement is planned. Since 7 September, the HSE and DEFRA have carried out further joint inspections. All of the essential work will need to be completed before IAH and Merial can resume full operations.
	I shall return to the issue of bluetongue and a potential vaccine from Merial a little later.
	We are now requiring of Merial that all the virus that it produces should be inactivated before it reaches even the first part of the drainage system. That will require a heat treatment facility and it needs to put that in place —[Interruption.] Well, that is a factual description of what is happening in response to the question about when Merial will be in a position to resume work to try to find a virus to deal with bluetongue. We need to be satisfied that that has been done before it can resume its full operations.
	I shall deal directly with the charge by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that warnings about conditions at the facility had been ignored. The first point that I want to make is that the IAH has been inspected, as part of its Specified Animal Pathogens Order—SAPO—licence, on a regular basis under the arrangements that were set up in the early 1990s. The institute was required to take action as a result of those inspections and submit reports on progress. However, at no point was it the view of the inspectors that the IAH was unsafe in its operations.
	On the issue of the drains, DEFRA—as the regulator—was indeed consulted about plans for their replacement, but we were not aware that they were leaking. That is a very important point. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone else. No scientist that I know of has said that the drains were damaged. If the hon. Gentleman can draw my attention to any scientist who did say that, I would be very interested, because that is what he claimed. As soon as we became aware of the damage—in August, as a result of the HSE's work—action was taken.
	It is not the case that live virus was released into the public drainage system, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire suggested in his remarks. There is no evidence of that at all. So that the House understands, let me say that the Pirbright site has a two-stage process to ensure that all virus is completely inactivated before it goes into the public drainage system. The IAH and Merial had their own separate arrangements, which then fed into a shared pipe, and a second-stage belt-and-braces treatment process took place to deal with any effluent before it went into the public drainage system.
	Why had a discussion taken place about the replacement of the drains? It had occurred because they were old, and because of concern about their capacity and about surface water potentially coming into the system, but not because of concern that the drains were leaking. As Professor Spratt makes clear in his report, safety depends not on the age of the facility but on the procedures carried out.
	As regulator, DEFRA was consulted about the specification for the replacement of the drains; we were not asked for funding to replace the drains, and nor would we have been. As I said to the House last week, one would not ask the regulator for money to improve or replace one's facilities, any more than a factory that was inspected and found not to be up to scratch would ask the HSE to give it some money to improve its facilities.
	The Government accepted the findings of the reports of Professor Gull in 2002 and Dr. Cawthorne in 2003 about the need to upgrade the facilities at Pirbright. Following the development of a costed proposal, the Government decided in 2005 to invest £121 million in new facilities at Pirbright, which, it should be acknowledged, is fundamentally important to our fight against animal diseases throughout the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of that money, £31 million has already been spent on the site. With respect, therefore, nobody can credibly argue that a lack of funding to be spent in Pirbright was the problem.
	Had the drains been thought to be the overwhelming priority for action on the site, no doubt some of that £31 million would have been used to replace them, but that was not the case. I accept that that raises a question about prioritisation: if people felt that that was the priority, why was that not a factor in decisions about the £31 million expenditure? I agree that the issue needs to be examined. That is the reason why the second review that I have set up—I shall come to the other one in a moment—which the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council will carry out into IAH, will look at funding, governance and risk management.

Hilary Benn: No; I shall make progress now, as I have been generous in giving way.
	I shall come to bluetongue in a moment. On vaccination for foot and mouth disease, in both phases of the outbreak we had organised and were ready to vaccinate if necessary. In the event, we decided that it was not—a view shared by the chief veterinary officer and independent scientific advice. We have worked with colleagues in the devolved Administrations to take decisions about disease control, when possible on a co-ordinated basis. After all, the industry is inter-dependent in its activities in different parts of Great Britain, although we recognise that animal health is a devolved matter. We have worked with representatives of the industry to circulate information about the controls, through information packs, text message alerts and information on the DEFRA website. I acknowledge that not all farmers have access to the internet, but a lot of effort has been put into getting information to farmers. We have worked with the National Farmers Union to do so, and to try to identify and reduce the very real economic and welfare pressures faced by farmers. That is why we have taken a risk-based approach to lifting movement restrictions.
	Clearly, the emergence of the third case on 12 September—more than a month and a bit after the previous reported case—made things much more difficult. We now know that that was the result of unreported infection in one premises.  [Interruption.] Yes, they were visited, but as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will know because of his expert knowledge, it is difficult to detect old disease. It was picked up because of blood sampling of sheep, and that reinforces the point that farmers are the first line of defence in defeating the disease.
	As a result of the case, controls had to be reimposed. Farm-to-farm movement resumed on 23 September. Markets reopened at the beginning of this month, and last Friday meat product exports from Scotland, Wales and the low-risk area of England were able to resume. That is an important step forward. We are also working with the European Commission to try to decrease the restrictions on exports, and to increase the areas of the country from which exports can be made. The next meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health will be on Friday.
	The 20-day rule relates to domestic controls on animal standstills. As of today, that is now six days for areas outside the FMD risk area. The 21-day rule is an EU export rule, and means that animals cannot be moved onto a premises in the preceding 21 days. To change that, we would need to persuade Europe to do things differently.

Alan Beith: Does the Secretary of State realise that hill farmers in Northumberland have not yet received any welfare payments, even though they see that a welfare slaughter scheme is in operation for farmers on the Scottish side of the hill. For farmers on the English side, however, not even the payments to which he has referred have come through.

Hilary Benn: It is true that the Treasury reserve met the costs in 2001, because the sheer scale of the outbreak and the costs incurred meant that no other budget—that is, of the former Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or of the devolved Administrations—could possibly have coped with paying for the measures that it was decided needed to put in place at that time. That is the fundamental difference.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the advance notice his office gave me of that distressing news not just for livestock farmers in my constituency but also for the many farmers throughout Kent, Sussex and the wider south-east who use Ashford market. I hope that in the remainder of his speech the Secretary of State can give some certainty about time scales—how long the effects and the movement restrictions are likely to last. If possible, can he offer some practical reassurance to the many, many farmers who will be newly affected by this terrible outbreak?

David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has got that quite wrong. Where did that filthy food come from in the first place? Foot and mouth did not suddenly spring up at Heddon-on-the-Wall or Catterick Army base. It had to come into this country from a foreign source. This is my second point: the Government did nothing to protect our borders and then failed to detect foot and mouth at Heddon-on-the-Wall—the farm had been inspected. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—later DEFRA—was obsessed by controlling farmers and markets and covered up the fact that it had not taken the necessary preventive action to stop foot and mouth in this country. Of course, DEFRA is still obsessed by controls on markets and farmers.
	Thirdly, based on these self-delusions, repairing Pirbright was not a priority. After the discovery that the drains were clapped out, clearly part of the thought process was, "Well, that's not too important because it doesn't really cause foot and mouth. Foot and mouth is caused by farmers moving animals around the country." The Secretary of State says that no one actually said that the drains were leaking, but surely it stands to reason that if one gets a report saying that drains are ancient and clapped out, one automatically thinks that they are probably leaking as well. The Government cannot escape from their responsibility by saying that no one told them about the leaking drains. The guilty man is not the Secretary of State, but the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who did not put up the necessary funds to fix those drains. That man is now the Prime Minister.
	My fourth charge against the Government is that once foot and mouth started, they initially made frantic efforts to blame Merial and to try to exempt the Institute for Animal Health from responsibility. DEFRA's attempt to blame someone else when its laboratory was at fault was despicable. DEFRA was the guilty party and it remains as such. At the end of the day, it will probably have to pay in court.
	The Government's fifth mistake was moving slaughtered animals around the country. They were horrified by the spectre of more burning pyres, although why they did not go for animal burial I do not know. They added to the risk. Of course, they say that the lorries were sealed and that vets drove behind them looking for any blood and guts dripping out, but the very fact that dead foot and mouth animals were being moved from infected premises to incineration plants along highways in clear zones added unnecessary risk. I assume that that happened because, for purposes of media handling, it looked better on the telly than burning cows.
	A sixth charge of incompetence against the Government is that farmers outside the protection and surveillance zones—perhaps inside as well, but certainly outside, in Cumbria—were left utterly in the dark about what to do. No one told them anything. If farmers had been watching the telly or listening to the radio, they would have discovered that animal movements had been banned, but many were not doing so. They also were not linked, like computer geeks, to the DEFRA website every minute of the day. However, the only information for farmers was on that website. The Government must consider how they communicate with farmers outside the zone during a catastrophe such as foot and mouth. They should not assume that everything can be done through the website. It is expensive to send letters by post, but that is probably the only way in which farmers can be given adequate warning.
	The seventh charge is that the Government did not seem to have carried out forward planning on the licensing of animal movements. It took DEFRA days and days to issue licences and guidance on whether farmers could move their cows across the road for milking and on casualty animals going to slaughter or abattoirs. That should not have happened. Surely, after 2001, a manual was sitting on a shelf that said, "If foot and mouth happens again, this is what we do on the licensing regime." All the local and county council inspectorates should have had that manual so that those responsible for issuing licences could have turned to the relevant page and processed the licences on the morning after the outbreak occurred. Instead, they seemed to be making things up as they went along.
	The eighth mistake was the false all clear. The Government said, "We've eradicated foot and mouth from Surrey. It won't happen again chaps. Carry on!" However, that was negligent and should not have happened.
	The ninth mistake was the failure to start markets expeditiously outside the protection and surveillance zones when it became clear that foot and mouth was being contained in Surrey and Berkshire. Yes, the markets were started eventually, but it probably would have been utterly safe to start them 10 days earlier and that would have saved an awful lot of the desperate costs that have been faced in Cumbria, the north of England, Scotland and Wales.
	The 10th charge is that the 20-day standstill period negated the point of starting the markets. The Government said, "Well, we've got the markets started," but then imposed a 20-day standstill period. What on earth was the point? Yes, the standstill is now down to six days, so a farmer who was operating under a 20-day standstill and is on the fifth day has only one more day to go. For all new farmers the period is only six days. However, again, this is part of DEFRA thinking, "Farmers cause foot and mouth and farmers moving animals are the guilty party, not us, guv."
	The 11th charge is that the compensation package announced by Ministers is grossly insulting, given that farmers are losing £10 million a day through no fault of their own. If farmers had caused this through dirty farm practices or bad welfare standards, there would be a certain culpability, but farmers are utterly innocent and have a grossly inadequate compensation package.
	My 12th charge against the Government, although I congratulate the Secretary of State on standing firm, relates to the Scottish cull. Let hon. Members from north of the border come clean. This is not a welfare cull in Scotland, but an economic cull. There might be merits in an economic cull to compensate farmers, but if there are merits in such a cull in Scotland, there could be merits in an economic cull in England.

Elfyn Llwyd: I follow the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), whose constituency borders mine, and I agree with much of what he said.
	Wales is quite far from the site of the foot and mouth outbreak, but as the hon. Gentleman said, it has brought the livestock industry in Wales to a standstill. From 3 August to 10 October, nothing has been able to be moved or sold and it has hit Wales particularly badly. Abattoirs such as Welsh Country Foods are saying that they do not intend to send meat for export as the conditions imposed are so onerous. As the hon. Gentleman said, 80 per cent. of Welsh ewes are classed as hill and upland breeds. Of course, they produce lighter animals. Those are normally for export and not for consumption in the UK; they are normally about 2 km lighter than the average weight in England and Scotland. Therefore, there is little domestic demand for those light lambs. It is a crucial time: exports should be going on apace and we should be reaping the harvest, as it were.
	In 2006, 1.1 million lambs were exported from Wales, with a £30 million value. That is 35 per cent. of the total Welsh lamb production. NFU Cymru has written a memorandum saying that it is essential that, following the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,
	"government both in London and Cardiff maintains the pressure on the European Commission to allow the UK to resume exports as soon as possible."
	There was some good news in what the Secretary of State said about the six-day standstills. That is welcome, but some 200,000 store sheep are traded in Wales annually, with almost 70 per cent. of that trade occurring between August and December. In that period, 900,000 sheep, including breeding ewes, are also normally traded.
	The Welsh Assembly Government have tried to put in place a light lamb scheme to go some way towards alleviating those huge problems, and they are welfare problems, regardless of what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) said earlier. They are genuine welfare problems in the uplands of Wales and in Scotland—there is no getting away from it—and they are getting worse by the minute.
	With regard to bluetongue, we are aware that the BTV8 vaccine is available and ready to go. I urge the Secretary of State to look at that situation because we can all see that bluetongue disease will not go away overnight. It might be stalled during a cold winter. I need not say that there is a great fear that it will be back with us in the spring. The last thing we want is to be unprepared for it. I hope that contingency plans will be put in place to deal with that. It is bound to come back.
	Before I deal with the question of compensation, I make this other general point. In 2001, the previous Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, told the supermarkets that he wanted them to support the meat industry in the UK. It is now 2007. Precious little support is being offered. This is an opportunity for them to get involved properly in supporting this most important of industries. Although the Government cannot force their hand, they undoubtedly have a role in persuading them gently, and not so gently if necessary, to come into this void and to start to help out at what is the most important time in recent history for the agriculture industry in Wales and throughout the UK.
	The agriculture industry has seen a lot of troubles in the past 10 years. I am sure that we will come through this eventually, but times are very hard and we need support. I ask the Secretary of State again to look at the question of compensation. I do not want to dwell on the statements that we have had, but it is interesting that in both statements the Secretary of State has said that the outbreak has arisen from an unusual set of circumstances and that, to reflect that, the Chief Secretary has made funds available. I take it that the unusual set of circumstances means that there could be culpability on the part of Government in due course. I happen to agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Clwyd, West. The case has been made. We have talked in legalistic terms. It must be a strict liability issue. If someone undertakes a dangerous occupation on their land and any toxin or other danger emanates out to the public, they are liable under Rylands  v. Fletcher and the rule of strict liability.
	I do not condemn the Government, but I ask them to think carefully. The Secretary of State said that he has lawyers who will advise him. There are lawyers in this House as well, and the opinion has been made.  [Interruption.] Is the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) laughing? Perhaps this is a laughing matter to him, but some of us care passionately about it. I respectfully advise the Secretary of State that this is a strict liability issue, and that it is therefore now time for the Government to apply pressure for compensation—on the Treasury, if that is where the money is to come from.
	I spoke yesterday and the day before with the Minister in the National Assembly for Wales who has responsibility for agriculture. It is not acceptable for us in Wales to have to look for contingency funds for something that occurred due to a strict liability issue over the border. We are far away from the seat of this infection, but we are suffering as much as anybody else—perhaps more so. In the area I represent, there are many communities of hill farmers so we are suffering greatly. Diversification is not a relevant term there; it is not possible to diversify in high upland areas. We are utterly dependent on the trade in question, which has been brought to a standstill.
	I ask the Secretary of State to liaise further with his opposite number in Cardiff, Elin Jones AM, Minister for Rural Affairs, and to use his good offices to try to ensure that the Treasury is receptive to an application for reasonable compensation at this stage. There are clear welfare and economic issues; there are huge issues for all of rural Wales that could, in part, be addressed.
	I do not accuse the Secretary of State of cynicism; I have been careful not to do so. I believe him to be an honourable man, and I urge him to assist us in this most important of matters for both Wales and Scotland.

Anne Milton: I wish to raise two main issues—why this happened and who is responsible, and the individual concerns of my farmers—but I shall start by paying tribute to Government Ministers. When the news broke on that Friday, they went to some lengths to be in touch with me. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) received the same treatment, as did many other Surrey MPs. Ministers were vigilant about keeping in touch with all of us throughout that weekend, the following week and when the second outbreak occurred.
	I also wish to state that it was a pleasure to welcome the Secretary of State to Guildford to meet some of the staff working at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs site in my constituency. I have no doubt that the Government learned a great deal from the 2001 outbreak, and their swift action on animal movements certainly had a significant impact on this outbreak.
	However, I am sorry to have to say that most of my praise ends there. There has been a lot of comment about why the outbreak occurred. I wish to highlight a few remarks made in both the Health and Safety Executive report and the Spratt report. First, let me quote from the HSE report:
	"However, such was the condition in which we found the site drainage system that we conclude that the requirements for Containment Level 4 were not met...Our conclusion is supported by the evidence we found of long-term damage and leakage, included cracked pipes, unsealed manholes and tree root ingress."
	It is astounding that the Secretary of State cannot accept that there had been long-term leakage.
	What that report goes on to say is even more shattering:
	"we are aware of a difference of opinion between IAH and Merial over responsibility for maintenance of a key section of pipe".
	That is astonishing. It sounds a bit like a council arguing about a piece of land and who should cut the grass, with the housing department saying it is highways land and the highways department saying it is housing land. It is incredible that, in a facility that was dealing with such a dangerous virus, people were squabbling madly over who was responsible for a pipe.

Tim Farron: I thank my hon. Friend for his observation, and I agree with him. I shall give one graphic illustration of the problem. This morning, I talked to a farmer in Longsleddale in my constituency. He had been to market this morning, and for a finished fat lamb he received £28. Earlier in the year, he would have expected to have received £42, and even that would have been an inadequate sum. Prices are now at early-1980s levels, yet this is 2007.

Tim Farron: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should be pursuing all those measures. It would be a small price to pay, given the benefits that farming delivers for this country.
	I referred to the ridiculously low prices that farmers are being offered as a consequence of the dreadful situation they are in, but we all will have observed that prices remain the same on the shelves in the supermarkets. The problem is an excess of supply over demand, and therefore disproportionate power in the hands of the buyers, who know that they have farmers in a vice. I want to take this opportunity to condemn—I hope on behalf of the whole House—the role played by many buyers and supermarkets in deliberately exploiting the weaknesses of farmers in the markets. That is a demonstration that the free market does not work. There is no invisible hand in the marketplace making things fair. We need to demonstrate our visible hand to ensure fair trade for farmers. If I may be forgiven the plug, it is a clear demonstration of the need for a market regulator in that area.
	Most of the farmers in my constituency are tenants and they have tiny incomes. Only two weeks ago, I talked to a hill farmer who reminded me that he had not made a profit in the past decade and he is living off what little he has. Over that period, many of the farmers in my area have lived off historical profits and, as tenants, they have no property to fall back on.
	Few people are coming to farming from fresh, without a farming background. The farming lifestyle is very attractive in many ways and the work done is so valuable, but increasingly few of those who are from farming backgrounds are taking the risk of following their parents into farming. One consequence is the reduction in the number of working farms. One valley in my constituency had 26 farms 25 years ago, but now has only seven—the same amount of land is managed by a much smaller number of people. The consequences are clear. First, we run a huge risk with the security of food supply. The Government are vexed about energy supply, but they are seemingly not that bothered about the food supply; they should take the issue on board.
	Secondly, there is the landscape. People may think that farming is heavily subsidised and we give folks in agriculture money for nothing, but they should remember that the countryside that we value so highly and on which tourism completely depends does not occur naturally. It exists because it is farmed. It is estimated that some £400 million a year is spent by farmers on maintaining the countryside, and they get none of that back. The footpaths are maintained by farmers. Fields are not boggy and flooded, thanks to farmers. Natural England should be reminded that if it wants partners to help to deliver its biodiversity programme, it needs farmers farming.
	Keeping Britain farming is an investment, and I am afraid that the Government are not making that investment. If we are to invest money in the industry—the Government owes it to farmers to provide more than the pittance that has been offered so far. The most obvious approach to take is price support, as many other hon. Members have pointed out. If a third of sheep were to go to export and now will not do so, the answer is to buy them and create a floor price so that farmers get a fair return for the work that they have done. After all, as we have established, the problem is the Government's fault.
	Let us be clear: foot and mouth disease is an animal welfare problem, but principally it is a farm economics problem. That is why it is so important that the Government get the balance right. In killing off foot and mouth, we must not kill off farming.

Bill Wiggin: We have covered an important subject today. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) opened the debate by asking all the right and awkward questions of the Government. He also patiently took some rather silly interventions from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who clearly had not read page 9, item 31 of the Spratt report.
	My hon. Friend also took an important and valuable intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about the removal of top soil from the Pirbright site, and the Government's complete failure to record where they have put it.
	The Secretary of State did not do himself a great deal of credit in his response to my hon. Friend's opening speech. I believe that he told us that no work on a bluetongue vaccine will take place until the new heat treatment filters are fitted. As I understand it, the Pirbright factory was making a vaccine for a disease that we did not have in this country, and allowed that disease to escape. Now that there is bluetongue all around the Pirbright factory, it is not making the vaccine—although we now need it, because the disease has emerged. It defies belief that the Government cannot get anything right.
	Nor is it right for the Secretary of State to suggest that no scientist had complained about the drains and that therefore the drains could not have been leaking. Scientists do not look down drains. That is the responsibility of DEFRA; it is supposed to regulate the site, rather than leaving it to scientists to complain about the drains. The idea that nobody acted negligently cannot be right; it is absurd and flies in the face of DEFRA's reactions to farmers, who are now being prosecuted. John Hepplethwaite, 72, and his wife Sally, 69, are being prosecuted for not noticing, I believe, that their cattle had foot and mouth. They are not vets or veterinary inspectors, but they are being prosecuted while DEFRA, which is responsible for patrolling and regulating the Pirbright site, is, apparently, without blame. That is patent nonsense. The Secretary of State described farmers as the first line of defence; we cannot go around prosecuting our first line of defence, Secretary of State.
	The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) said clearly that the Government were guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and he is absolutely right. He issued a withering attack on the Government and robustly defended his farming constituents. Sadly, his mind may be on other things at the moment—in particular, persuading the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) not to vote for him.
	The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) praised the Government and described his interest in animal welfare. He also described some of the difficulties that his pig farming constituents had had, but failed to make the point that the Government could do a great deal more for animal welfare. Top of that list would be to ensure that the right drugs were available for animals that have caught bluetongue diseasethey need steroids, painkillers and penicillin. What is the correct dosage for animals with the disease? What guidance is there? Hon. Members may have seen the excellent article in this week's  Farmers Weekly; it made clear that lessons from Holland can be learned, but I have not yet seen anything that shows that the Government have picked up on those valuable lessons.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) made a brilliant speech. He accused the Government of incompetence, citing at least 13 instances in which they had done the wrong thing because they are obsessed by farm movements and not their own biosecurity. He timed his speech to the moment, and it was a joy to hear him show that, without any reasonable doubt, the Government have been guilty of negligence.
	The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) rightly mentioned the importance of farm-gate prices. She spoke too about the power of the supermarkets, the speed of single farm payments and of hill farm allowances. She was also right to note the importance of producing our own food.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) thanked his local people and councillors, and spoke extremely eloquently about Merial. He rightly said that it was entirely DEFRA's responsibility to license, regulate, inspect and fund the Pirbright site. He also mentioned that footpaths had not been closed, something that has caused much distress to all our constituents across the country. It is a great shame that the Government have singularly failed to deliver the joined-up thinking that we were promised. He asked about compensation and about the quality and frequency of inspections, and he wanted to know whether DEFRA was happy about the present arrangements. He made some extremely important points, to which I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will respond when he winds up the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) made a lovely speech about his pride in his constituency, and in its farmers and lamb production. He talked about the pathetic prices that farmers now receive36p a head for certain ewesand he spoke brilliantly about the legal precedent involved. He attacked the Government's reputation for competence, rightly citing the Prime Minister's cynical manipulation of the process, and he also spoke about accountability and resignations. He said that the farming industry will not forget what has happened.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) talked about the price for light lambs for export, and about the huge numbers of sheep being traded in Wales. Citing the Rylands  v. Fletcher judgment, he made the case that liability lies with the Government. My notes are a little shaky, but I suspect that he meant that the person performing an action must take responsibility for it. That means that it is the responsibility of the regulatory body to ensure that none of its sites leak diseases, and especially not one as important and dangerous as FMD.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) thanked the Government for briefing her and keeping her in touch. Her approach was very reasonable, and she quoted from Spratt about the long-term leakage problems. She made a very good case about the state of the pipes, rightly saying that the Government had failed to keep them in good condition. She said that the Secretary of State was wriggling on a hookquite generous, given what I saw of his performance. She also mentioned the lack of integrity on display, and I suspect that she might have been a bit tougher if the right hon. Gentleman were a less popular Minister, as this was not his finest hour.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said that the damage done to the farming community by an outbreak at this time of year was like an attack on retail at Christmas time. He was absolutely right: all livestock farmers will have had a terrible time, and that is certainly true in my constituency. The price of lamb has collapsed, and the ripple effect will hit the beef price as the year goes on. He added that Labour had no rural representation in the Chamber, and it was unfortunate to see that there were no Labour Back Benchers listening to his speech.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) made an excellent speech, in which he claimed that the Government were speaking with a forked tongue. I suspect he was making his speech with a silver tongue[Hon. Members: Oh!] I accept that this is an extremely serious matter about which we should not joke. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree also told the House about how vets and farmers in his constituency had been kept very short of information. He took an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) who talked about cattle falling from the back of lorries. Obviously, the Government's handling of these things leaves a lot to be desired.
	I started asking questions about bluetongue as long ago as 16 April when the Government seemed confident that they could handle any outbreak of the disease. Sadly, that has not proved to be the case. The virus has spread to 36 farms, 60 infected animals have tested positive since the first case on 28 September and now the disease is present in sheep.
	The Secretary of State suggested that a vaccine will be available in the summer. I hope that is true and that the Minister will confirm that information. I understand that 36 scientists should be working on producing the vaccine at Pirbright, but obviously they are not because of the lack of the right heat filter.
	Lord Rooker told my noble Friend Baroness Byford that DEFRA and its partners have been undertaking
	a cost analysis of potential bluetongue outbreaks and control measures in the United Kingdom.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 29 March 2007; Vol. 690, c. WA291.]
	Has any work been done to examine how the disease is being handled in Holland? I have already mentioned the article in  Farmers Weekly and I hope the Government will look at it and reflect on what they can do to improve animal health in the UK.
	What did the Prime Minister say when he was told about the foot and mouth outbreak? How did he react after coming back from his holiday to go on the radio on 8 September to tell everybody what his Government were going to do only to discover that the disease had broken out again?
	There is another thing that is not quite right. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said:
	Any issues relating to the funding of the effluent system, whether remedial or replacement, would be a matter for the IAH and Merial...the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council...and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.[ Official Report, 9 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 450W.]
	Nobody has mentioned their role. Have they been asked to contribute to the fund the Government have put together to help farmers? If they have, how much have they put in? After all, the Minister said that they were among the people responsible. We need to know who he thinks is responsible for the escape of the virus. We know from the Spratt report that the Pirbright site is not up to scratch and that the proposal made to DEFRA in 2004 was ignored. It is important that we have answers from the Minister.
	I realise that we are running out of time, but it is worth reminding the House that the Bill for foot and mouth so far is 250 million. The single farm payment fine was 305 million. Bovine tuberculosis has cost 100 million. So far, that is 650 million of incompetence. Apparently, it costs about 240 million to build a 400-bed general hospital. We could have had nearly three hospitals if DEFRA had been competent.
	The Department has failed to offer protection in the areas for which it is responsible. DEFRA has failed the people who trusted it and it has failed the test of competence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would Members who are leaving please do so quietly.

Kevin Brennan: I do not wish to refer to any particular individuals in responding to the hon. Gentleman but as he may be aware I have made it clear in public remarks on the matter that I regard that as highly unfortunate. It is my view that it is unacceptable for the word to be used in that way. It is particularly important for high-profile figures to remember that.
	Where section 28 hampered teachers from using their professional judgment to discuss with students sensitive issues around sexual orientation, the new guidance on homophobic bullying, which has been developed in collaboration with Stonewall and Educational Action Challenging Homophobia and in broad consultation with all interested parties, including faith groups, gives teachers for the first time specific advice to help to challenge and to change homophobic attitudes, while supporting and affirming gay, lesbian and bisexual pupils, and their right to be themselves without being bullied.
	The guidance provides schools with advice on how to use the curriculum to encourage a climate of respect to ensure that gay pupils and gay teachers are fully included as part of the school community and that those pupils also excel at their studies. Next year, we will go further by issuing new guidance for schools on how to prevent and to tackle bullying of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. I know that the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) also has that as one of his top priorities.
	Bullying is not new, but there are new forms of bullying, or rather new means to bully. As technology rapidly develops and is more easily accessible, bullies have made cyberspace their new playground. Cyberbullying is a particularly insidious and harmful form of bullying, as it reaches into people's homes and direct to their mobile phones. There are various surveys and estimates, but a recent study by the Department for Children, Schools and Families indicated that about a third of 12 to 15-year-olds report having experienced cyberbullying in some form.
	Some incidents will be more serious than others. The use of the term happy slapping is as much a misnomer for what it represents as the term joyriding. There is nothing happy about being assaulted, but then for the assault to be recorded and shared with others is simply wrong. Cyberbullying can also take the form of abusive texts, e-mails and messages on social networking sites. Of course, it is not just pupils who are affected by cyberbullying. Teachers can be victims, too, with serious consequences for their motivation, job satisfaction, and classroom teaching.
	Through the Cyberbullying Taskforce, we have now brought together the industry, education professionals and law enforcement agencies to take forward a programme of work to tackle cyberbullying. I am particularly pleased that the industry is starting to face up to this problem by participating in the work. Many of the companies in this industry started off as small unregulated operations with a culture averse to any so-called censorship, but they have to understand that as their businesses grow up, their culture must do so also. Those companies have a corporate social responsibility to the young people who use their services. It is essential that they understand that. That is why I am so pleased that many of them are participating in our Cyberbullying Taskforce.

Kevin Brennan: That is absolutely right. There is an issue to do with the first amendment of the American constitution in respect of the United States of America, where many of the websites concerned are hosted. We are governed by European law.
	Let me also say this in response to my hon. Friend's point: many of the companies that advertise on such websites would be horrified to learn that their brand was appearing next to the kind of content we are discussing. While we are doing all we can internationally to get appropriate regulation, we could also influence websites by pointing out to some of the major brands where their advertising is appearing, and what content it is appearing next to. That is one way in which we might apply pressure where we do not, strictly speaking, have jurisdiction.
	We also commissioned Childnet International to produce our cyberbullying guidance, which provides schools with advice on safe and responsible use of the internet, on how to prevent cyberbullying in the first place, and on what action to take to get images or text taken down from websites. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) referred earlier to sometimes inadvertent bullying, and our new online campaign, called Laugh at it and you're part of it, aims to make young people more aware of the fact that viewing offensive content, even if they have not generated it, sending messages and thereby passing such content on, and laughing at it makes them part of the bullying. That is a very important message to get out to young people who might otherwise think that such behaviour is harmless, and who do not associate it with real suffering on the part of an individual.
	It is important that the Safe to Learn guidance, including the cyberbullying and homophobic bullying guidance, is put into practice. I have therefore asked the Anti-Bullying Alliance and the national strategies to work with local authorities and schools to ensure that the guidance is being embedded effectively, and we will be closely monitoring how it is used.
	That brings me to the third front on which we can fight bullyingby empowering the pupils and the victims themselves. Giving young people the facts about bullying and how to protect themselves is crucial, but we must also equip them mentally and emotionally with the resources and resilience that they need to recognise offensive behaviour, to stand up for their rights and those of others, and to understand others' feelings and resolve conflict themselves.
	Since coming back into education as a Minister, having left it in 1994, I have noticed that, as everybody involved in education will recognise, all the acronyms have changed. I have decided that we need a new word for the English language to describe all the acronyms that we no longer use: anacronym, which means an anachronistic acronym. I want to tell the House, however, about a new acronym: SEAL, which stands for the social and emotional aspects of learning.
	SEAL is a programme that allows pupils to explore some of these issues in the classroom and to find solutions to deal with them. In my view, every good school is based not just on a good record of attainment and a firm grip on bad behaviour, but on leadership and positive values. SEAL contributes to that value system by promoting tolerance and respect throughout the whole school, and by facilitating better relationships between staff and pupils. It is not a soft optionit is a valuable lesson for life. I believe firmly that, unless we help to strengthen the emotional intelligence of our young people in this ever-changing and hectic world, we will find it harder to develop their academic intelligence, too.

Barbara Keeley: A key group of young people who experience bullying at school has not been mentioned in the debate so far. I am referring to young carers: surveys suggest that seven out of 10 of them have been bullied, with eight out of 10 being called names, and five out of 10 being physically hit or abused.
	I understand that that level of bullying is much higher than the average, which is that three children out of 10 are normally affected by name calling, with two out of 10 being victims of violence. Most distressing is the knowledge that the bullying of young carers is a regular occurrence: 45 per cent. of young carers say that they are bullied on most days, and 20 per cent. have missed school as a result of being bullied. Indeed, bullying may be responsible for the fact that young carers in our society remain hidden. Who would want to identify themselves as a young carer when to do so would put them in a group treated as being different from other young people, and subsequently abused either physically or verbally?
	As has been noted already, bullying is a serious issue for all children and young people, but to me it seems much worse that young people with caring responsibilities must bear the additional burden of being bullied by their peers. Part of the difficulty in dealing with that is the extent to which young carers are hidden. The 2001 census estimates that there may be 175,000 carers under 18 in the UK, but many agencies working with young carers believe that that may be an underestimate. We know that 3 million children in the UK have a family member with a disability, that a quarter of million young people live with a parent who is misusing class A drugs, and that at least 1 million are the children of alcoholic parents. Many of those home situations will lead to caring responsibilities for a child or young person.
	Surveys of young carers have been carried out by Loughborough university's young carers research project in 1995, 1997 and 2003. They show that, for children and young people aged from five to 18, caring tasks include some child care and domestic tasks. Nearly two in 10 young carers also perform intimate care tasks, such as helping with washing, dressing and toileting. More than eight out of 10 young carers surveyed were giving emotional support to the person cared for, providing supervision of that person's emotional state and trying to cheer them up when they were depressed. The surveys found that young carers who are girls are almost twice as likely to carry out those intimate caring tasks, but that both boys and girls offer high levels of emotional support.
	A young carer can start offering care at between five and 10 years old, and can continue to do so for many years. Over 60 per cent. of those surveyed were caring for between three and 10 years, 44 per cent. for three to five years, and 18 per cent. for between six and 10 years.
	High levels of caring can clearly have an adverse impact on a young person's education. Just over eight out of 120 young carers care for up to 20 hours a week, while around one in 10 cares for between 20 and 49 hours, and about seven per cent. care for more than 50 hours a week. However, caring for even 20 hours a week, or three hours a day, can have an adverse impact on a child or young person. Imagine that when we were young we had to give up as much as three hours a day to carry out the tasks I described earlier. Caring makes a difference to a child's lifeat home as well as at school. It affects the child's ability to see friends and will limit their social or leisure activities, such as taking part in team games. At certain ages, it limits the amount of time available for homework or other school work.
	Surveys carried out in 1995 and 1997 showed that a high proportion of young carers missed school as a result of their caring responsibilities. There was a gap between 1997 and the next survey in 2003, which interestingly showed that the figures had improved. What made the difference was the fact that young carers projects, of which there are about 200, have started to work with schools. That improvement between 1997 and 2003 is important.
	None the less, despite the excellent work of young carers projects, 27 per cent. of all the young carers of secondary school age who were surveyed and 13 per cent. of those of primary school age still said that they experienced educational problems. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the figures are higher for young carers looking after someone who misuses drugs or alcohol. As many as four in 10 of such young carers were having educational difficulties. The figures could be higher, because 1 million children are living with parents who misuse alcohol.
	Bullying of young carers happens for a number of reasons. According to the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, young carers report that they are taunted about the condition of the person they care for; if their parent suffers from a mental health problem, for instance, someone might say to the young carer, Your mother's a psycho. Such bullying is similar to the prejudice-driven bullying to which the Minister and other Members have referred. In some ways, it is similar to the bullying of children with disabilities or other types of special educational need; the young carer becomes a proxy for the person for whom they are caring.
	Bullying can occur simply because young carers are different; for example, they do not join in with after-school activities. Another key aspect is that financial problems in families who live chaotic lives due to the misuse of drugs or alcohol mean that young carers cannot have the same clothes, games or computers as other young people. Being differentstanding out in the crowdis one of the reasons why children are bullied. As one young carer put it:
	All my friends are worrying about boyfriends and I am thinking about shopping and paying the bills.
	The Salford young carers project told me that children who are carers may also be different because they are not being properly looked after. They may be going to school in a dishevelled state, with dirty clothes or poor personal hygiene and that will make them stand out.
	The difficulty is that although many of those problems must be obvious to teachers and other adults at the school, young carers do not want to talk about them. Tony Watton, who manages a young carers project in Nottinghamshire, told me:
	Young carers don't want to highlight the bullying as it will highlight their situation at home.
	He said that it was a vicious circle and was one of the biggest issues dealt with by young carers projects such as his.
	A young carers service in north Yorkshire found that 75 per cent. of young carers were not known as such by their teachers. In several surveys, young carers commented that they considered themselves stigmatised by both their teachers and their peers and felt that their schools could and should be more understanding of their situation. Few schools provide counsellors or mentors to support young carers, yet where there are mentors children find their support helpful.
	I first encountered young carers and a young carers project in 1996 when I was vice-chair of Trafford social services. The mayor of Trafford picked the local young carers project as his fund-raising charity and a group of us visited it. I recall being astonished when I discovered that children as young a five could take on caring responsibilities for their parents or other family members, and that is still the case today.
	I recently spoke at a conference on young carers that was run by the children's services network of the Local Government Information Unit. The children's services network had produced an excellent document on issues for young carers. It seemed to me, from speaking to people from local authorities and schools on the day, that there is knowledge of what constitutes good practice in support for young carers. Over recent years, young carers projects have developed guides for teachers and protocols for social services authorities. I believe that it is now time that we introduced legislation to underline the support that schools should be giving to young carers.
	In April this year, I introduced the Carers (Identification and Support) Bill, the second part of which contained provisions that would improve support for young carers. The Bill would require schools and children's services authorities to have in place a policy to support young carers. Further clauses state that local authorities must make sure when assessing needs for community care that adult support services ensure that there is an alternative to relying on the support of a child carer.
	In some ways, we are talking about families, and we should recognise not only that such children are suffering at school, missing out on education and being bullied, but that someone from adult social services probably knows about their family and is working with them and has assessed their parents. Yet it seems that what is missing is that, when those assessment are done, the social services authorities do not ask about the parenting responsibilities of those people. They should ask not just how can they manage in the family, but about their being parents. The Bill would finally require local authorities to have a joint protocol between adult and children's services to ensure that they work collaboratively where an adult has become dependent for support on a young carer. Over the years that I have learned more about young carers, I have formed the view that we should say that young caring is not acceptable. We should not accept that young people should have their school lives and leisure time impacted on by caring. In the interim, however, we should take the steps outlined in the Bill.
	On 10 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families said that, when he was preparing for his new brief, he was
	shocked to learn of the 150,000 young people in England and Wales, currently under the age of 18, who are caring for a sick or disabled relative, often a parent.
	He also said:
	Social services departments and education authorities in particular need to ensure that those young people are supported, so that they are not excessively burdened, their childhood is not strangled by their responsibilities, and they are given educational priority.[ Official Report, 10 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 1337.]
	That is a very worthy aim for a new Secretary of State to espouse to in one of his first comments on young carers. However, we are very far from that situation. There were some very knowledgeable people at the recent conference run by the children's services network, but they are only a small group who understand such things.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not alone in his first reaction to discovering the existence of young carers. We have had debates in Westminster Hall on young carers, and hon. Members have expressed their emotions when they discover all the things that young children are doing. My right hon. Friend is not alone in hearing about those issues, and I hope that his briefing that day included the bullying of young carers that I have raised today.
	I accept that young carers still remain largely hidden in our communities. It is a very good thing that, over the years, 200 young carers projects have developed. However, given the number of Members, there is probably not a project in most constituencies, so many hon. Members do not get to see their work. I pay special tribute to those projects for the work that they do, but I recognise that, in many parts of the country, there is no such project working with schools.
	The other side of the equation is that, with about 30,000 schools across the UK, we cannot expect to map those 200 young carers projects on to those many thousands of schools, so that they can inform schools about young carers, develop awareness of young carers and take up the young carers support policy. Tomorrow, there is a debate on the third sector, the voluntary sector, and all those organisations are charities; but given their funding and support, we cannot leave it to them to do all the implementation, although they may pioneer good policies. I believe that it is right for the Department for Children, Schools and Families to take on that work.
	Carers rights day will be on Friday 7 December and that week the all-party parliamentary group is planning to hold an event in Parliament on young carers. We hope that we can bring in members of the national young carers forum, which has recently been formed, so that they can meet their MPs. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who now has responsibility for young carers, will be able to meet some of those young carers. I can relay some of the issues of bullying and the difficulties that they face in schools, but there is nothing better than listening to the young people themselves. The people who take on so much in their lives need to know that MPs and Ministers in the Government understand their issues and will do something about them. I shall write formally on behalf of the group to invite my hon. Friend to the event.
	I also hope that the legislation to achieve the aims that I set out in my Bill can soon be introduced to assist young carers and to ensure that their schools recognise and support them more fully in the future. Even without legislation, there are things that the Department might consider and the Minister might take them forward. If we accept that this is a very much a health issue and that we have an initiative on healthy schools, I suggest it would be a step forward to make the recognition of, and the taking of action to support, young carers one of the criteria necessary to become a healthy school.
	I extend the invitation to meet young carers to Members on both sides. I hope that we can listen to those carers and make it clear that we recognise that they carry a big burden and that that burden includes bullying. We want to do something to alleviate that in future.

Stephen Williams: I welcome the fact that the Government have called this debate. This topic receives far too little attention, and whenever we talk about education and the media report on educational matters the focus is usually on school performance, exam results, league tables and so on. We hear far too little about child welfare. Indeed, children often say that the biggest cause of stress for them in school is that they are tested so much. However, the second biggest reason for children feeling stress at school is bullyingeither because they have been the victim of bullying or have witnessed it happening to other people.
	Bullying undermines every single objective of Every Child Matters and, in particular, the aim of ensuring that children are safe and healthy in school and enjoy their time there. Despite what every head teacher will say when we visit them, bullying exists in every school. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children statistics have been referred to already and they show that in the most recent year for which figures are available 37,000 children rang ChildLine to ask for support. That is surely the tip of the iceberg.
	The nature of bullying has changed fundamentally recently. The Minister mentioned the internet and if one searches on YouTube and puts in the key words bullying and schools, as I have done, one will come up with thousands of hits. Many clips are available on the internet. The misery of bullying was once confined to the school yard or the school bus, but it has been transformed into a spectacle that the entire world can witness. Some of the images on this and other sites are of such shocking violence that if they were of an adult on an adult, they would probably be the subject of criminal proceedings. The owners of the websites are far too complacent; surely they should take down the images at the earliest opportunity.
	The Minister and others have also mentioned text bullying. Even a child's bedroom is no longer a sanctuary. If a child suffered bullying at school or on the bus, they used to feel safe when they arrived home. Now, because of modern technology, they can receive a threatening message even when they are at home. I have met representatives of Orange, O2 and Vodafone to discuss what they are doing to find technical solutions to the problem. I hope that a solution can be found soon.
	In the past, people might have been bullied because they were the school swot or there was something about their clothes or their appearance, but identity-related or prejudice-driven bullyingparticularly on the grounds of race, sexuality or disability is now a disturbing facet of the problem. When the Education and Skills Committee, of which I am a member, took evidence on the matter, we heard about all three aspects, including from Support Against Racist Incidents, which, although it is a national organisation, happens to be based in Bristol, West. The most awful report that has been sent to me in my present role or since I became a councillor in Bristol in 1993 was that from SARI showing the dreadful violence and prejudice expressed against citizens in Bristol and throughout the country. When the Committee took evidence from SARI, we heard that despite the fact that schools have a statutory duty to report incidents of racismwhether they are bullying or notthe organisation feels that racist bullying is under-reported.
	The Committee also heard about homophobic bullying from Educational Action Challenging HomophobiaI am sure that it is a coincidence that the organisation is also based in Bristol, Westand Stonewall. Stonewall's recent school report survey, which was based on interviews with 1,100 children and young people, showed that two thirds of those people had experienced bullying while they were at school and that three fifths of them had not reported it to the school or their parents. Why would that be the case? They might have thought that nothing would be done, or perhaps there was no school policy, but it probably happened because they were fearful of the consequences of confirming their sexual identity at a young age.
	Homophobic bullying is different from other forms of bullying because while a person who is bullied because of such aspects as their race or religion will have a peer group to turn to, a person who is bullied because they are gay, or suspected to be gay even though they are not, will not usually have a peer group in the school to turn to. Additionally, they will probably not have had the important coming out conversation with their parents at that age. Stonewall's report showed that half the people surveyed felt that they could not be themselves while they were at school. Homophobic bullying snatches away an integral part of a young person's identity.
	Hon. Members have mentioned the third form of identity-related bullying, which relates to special educational needs or disability. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) referred to the evidence that Mencap gave to those of us participating in the debate, which showed not only that 82 per cent. of people with a learning disability had experienced bullying, but that 60 per cent. had been physically hurt by the bullyingit was not just taunting. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, mentioned autism. The bullying of children with autism is the cruellest form of bullying simply because the bullied child might not realise that they are a victim of bullying and might not have the communication skills to convey the fact that they are a victim to their teachers or parents.
	I have said something about the problems and incidence of bullying in schools, but what about the solution? It is important that the profile of bullying is raised. In addition to our debate, we will have anti-bullying week between 19 and 23 November. During last year's anti-bullying week, I recorded a clip, which was put on to YouTubethis is something positive to say about the siteabout bullying and, especially, the importance of tackling homophobic bullying. The clip has had more than 4,300 viewings, and it is one of the most watched clips by any Member of Parliament. If hon. Members have not yet seen it, they can go and search for it after the debate.
	Many mainstream charities, such as the NSPCC, are focusing specifically on bullying, while specific charities, such as Beatbullying and the Anti-Bullying Alliance, bring people together. Teachers' unions, the Select Committee and, to be fair, the Government are taking the subject tremendously seriously.
	A motion on bullying was passed at our party conference in Brightonit was only about four weeks ago, but in light of recent events it seems a lifetime ago. We suggested that there should be a whole-school approach on tackling bullying and a policy for each type of bullying. We said that every school, without exceptionthe hon. Member for Buckingham mentioned faith schools earliershould adopt a practice and policy on the different types of bullying. Stonewall is giving the Department support in preparing a pack on homophobic bullying and I think that that is about to be released. Can the Minister confirm that it will go to every single school and that he will ensure that every single school implements the policy?
	We call for every school to ensure that there is a member of the senior management team and a member of the governing body who are responsible for making sure that people adhere to the bullying policy. Our most important recommendation is that there be professional counselling for victims of bullying. The NSPCC suggests that it should be independent, but I do not have a specific view on that. Perhaps the counselling could be done by the school's pastoral staff. I visited the NSPCC team in Bristol who provide independent counselling support for children who have been bullied in the city's schools. I was tremendously impressed by the team's work, but I was shocked by some of the incidents with which they have had to contend.
	We can also tackle bullying through the curriculum. Citizenship education has been mentioned already, but there is an important role for school councils, too. Every time that I visit a Bristol school, I ask to meet the school council, and I always ask its members what they, as children, are doing to ensure input in developing anti-bullying policies. The Minister mentioned social and emotional aspects of learning, but I do not think that he mentioned personal, social and health education. If it was compulsory in every schoolat the moment, implementing that curriculum is voluntaryevery child would understand the diverse nature of 21st century bullying, and that would contribute to a reduction in bullying. The issue is not really money; it is just a matter of political will, and of schools showing a real commitment to tackling the problem.
	So far, the debate has been consensual, but I was disappointed to hear what was said in Prime Minister's Question Time, the weekly circus that we all have to witness. Our party is quite used to the Prime Minister or the Chancellor deriding Liberal Democrat spending commitments, but I was surprised today when the Prime Minister included our policy on bullying in those that he derided. I hope that he will repair the damage that he has done by giving the impression that ensuring consensus and treating bullying seriously is not an objective. In the past year, the only specific spending commitment that we have made on bullying is through our support for Beatbullying's 4QuidAKid campaign. The charity has estimated that it would cost 4 per child to put in place a specific programme of anti-bullying work in every school in the country. When the Prime Minister was Chancellor, he pledged that his Government would bridge the funding gap per pupil between independent and state schools. That gap is many thousands of pounds; surely he can find 4 to implement an anti-bullying policy.
	Bullying is an emotionally crushing experience for tens of thousands of pupils. It undermines their attainment and leads to truancy, and the legacy can often remain with someone later in life. All schools should be safe places for learning. I think that today's debate will give the victims of bullying some hope that their plight is being taken seriously.

Stewart Jackson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams). He referred to the Prime Minister's comments, but perhaps he takes them too seriously. I fear that they were a cheap jibe in view of this week's events, but I think that the hon. Gentleman made his point well. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), who made a passionate and authoritative speech that focused on her work of raising the issue of carers, for which she should be commended.
	There is a great deal of consensus among Members on both sides of the House on the issue. I hope that we will not be involved in any partisan point-scoring this afternoon, because we all want the same things. There are parts of the Government's policy with which we Opposition Members certainly agree. We agree with the guidance given under the auspices of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 on removing knives and other offensive weapons from schoolchildren who bring them to schools. We generally support Safe to Learn: Embedding Anti-Bullying Work in Schools, the new guidelines launched by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families last month. However, there is the wider context of social change and the breakdown of deference, the culture of respect for other people in schools, and authority generally. How children feel about their lives, their families, their future and their environment was shown in sharp relief by the UNICEF report of February 2007, which regrettably showed that the UK's children are among the unhappiest in the developed world.
	This is an important debate and I regret that more Members are not present to listen and to contribute to it, but speculating on the reasons for that may be above my pay grade.
	In 2005, 32,000 children contacted ChildLine to report that they had been bullied, and 70 per cent. of those had been bullied at school. As the House probably knows, 81,000 children received fixed-period exclusions and 1,780 received permanent exclusions in the education year 2004-05 for assaults on other pupils. Similar figures were recorded for verbal abuse and threatening behaviour. That is a significant badge of shame for our school system.
	Regrettably, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Chairman of the Select Committee, is no longer in his place. Reference was made to the Committee's very good report of March 2007, which reached a number of key conclusions on bullying. The report made it clear that the Committee was concerned that
	casual attitudes to violence seem to be becoming more common,
	and that there was
	a lack of respect for other people, a lack of respect for difference, and anti-social behaviour, as well as bullying.
	The report identified the fact that children who had been the victims of bullying at school were, bizarrely, often excluded on the grounds of health and safety, instead of the root cause of bullying being dealt with by the school authorities, as it should have been.
	The key issue in the report was the lack of demonstrably reliable data about the prevalence and types of bullying. The hon. Member for Bristol, West made the pertinent point that bullying should not be treated as a catch-all concept. There are different types of bullying. For instance, a Muslim girl might be bullied because of the way she dresses, because she wears a scarf, or because she has to leave school early on a Friday for Friday prayers. Equally, an evangelical Christian who reads the Bible in school because that is what they have been taught and that is their family background might be bullied. Religious bullying is not a single phenomenon. We need to deal with bullying at the lowest possible level and in a professional manner, through school management and through counselling.
	The Select Committee found that
	a lack of accurate reliable data on bullying is one barrier to more effective anti-bullying work,
	and expressed concern that
	decisions on anti-bullying policy are being made with very little evidence to guide them.
	The problem of bullying must be seen in the context of school discipline. If I may be partisan for just 30 seconds, school discipline was a major plank of the 2005 Conservative general election manifesto, and it was rubbished by some senior Ministers, who claimed that that was not at the top of the agenda for electors. I am glad to see that the Government have taken on board our arguments and are developing policies based on our 2005 manifesto. We knew then that it was indeed a major issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) pointed out the link between discipline, standards and a reduction in bullying. The corollary is that poor discipline results in more bullying.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister asks a pertinent question. Unfortunately, he is out of time with his accusations, as the partisan part of my speech is behind me and I am now moving into more consensual mode. As it happens, Conservative Members supported the Government on key areas of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The media, of course, concentrated on the issue of academies. I must confess that I have an interest to declare, as England's largest academy, the Thomas Deacon academy, is based in my constituencyand a very fine school it is, too. I shall refer to it again later.
	We supported the Government on that Bill, which received Royal Assent at the end of last year. In particular, we supported clauses 80 and 81, which required schools to develop a behaviour policy; clauses 82 to 84 on the statutory power to discipline pupils; clauses 89 and 90 on parental contracts and orders; and clauses 95 and 97, which required parents to take responsibility for their children in the immediate period after their exclusion from school.
	Poor discipline continues to be a major problem in all schools and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made clear, it has the biggest impact on the education of the vast majority of well behaved children. Last year, 220,000 pupils were suspended from school more than once, which was up from 19,000 in the previous year. In some senses, we are seeing a crisis of school discipline. As I mentioned earlier, in 1,587 schools, more than 10 per cent. of pupils have been excluded; and in 192 schools, more than 30 per cent. have been excluded. That, to my mind, is a crisis of indiscipline. Truancy is also rising, as 3.7 million school days were lost in the spring term this year.
	A report from earlier this month, commissioned by the Royal Bank of Scotland, showed that it was not just the secondary sector that has problems, as one in four primary school children were shown to have been the victims of playground bullying. It often happens because children are bored and have nothing to do; they have recourse to bullying in the absence of any meaningful alternative focus at the time.
	Members should cast their minds back a few months to the publication of a report in the quality newspapers about the absence of a playground in the Thomas Deacon academy in Peterborough. There was a minor outcry in my constituency at the fact that children had nowhere to play. However, when the facts and figures were examined, it emerged that there was a reason for not having a playground. I emphasise that we are talking about a playgroundnot playing fields or a theatre or activity roomsand it was absent for a specific reason. The school wanted to build out the risk of childrenoften those from poor backgrounds in the east of my constituencybeing bullied because of the way they spoke, how they looked, their parents' backgrounds and so forth. The decision was based on best practice at other successful schools.
	The other issue is that there is a philosophy and ethos of excellence in that school. I put aside partisan differences. I did not agree with much that the former Member for Sedgefield, Mr. Blair, did, but he did the right thing on academies. Of course he filched the policy from the Conservative party. The city technology colleges policy was pioneered by the last Conservative Government, and it was the right policy. It would be infantile for us to say anything other than that we support it now if it helps our children to succeed in a difficult world.
	The Thomas Deacon academy took the brickbats and the flak in deciding not to have a playground because it wanted actively to tackle bullying. It opened on 7 September, and I hope and expect its methods to work.
	One way in which to tackle bullying at primary school level is to deal with the physical environment. That approach has been pioneered by the national school grounds charity Learning through Landscapes, and includes the provision of friendship benches, buddies and active teacher role models who encourage stimulating play. The idea is to focus kids' minds rather than just throwing them out into a playground for 20 minutes. They will be able to take part in physical activity, and a child who may feel isolated or may be prone to bullying can be looked after, cared for and mentored by an older child on a friendship bench. In some parts of the country, that approach has been proved to reduce the amount of bullying in primary schools.
	However, as I said earlier, we must also focus on the children who do the bullying, and on their parents, because it is a difficult time for them. We must not focus only on the children who are bullied and on their parents and families, although of course that is vital as well. I echo the view of Parentline Plus that, although legal sanctions are importantand Conservative Members strongly support themthey must be accompanied by strong parental support. As the organisation said recently in remarks published in  The Guardian,
	we... take calls from parents of bullies appalled at their children's behaviour and not knowing which way to turn.
	That sense of isolation, shame and stigma can exacerbate an already difficult and traumatic situation.
	I congratulate my local authority, Peterborough city council, on its initiatives to tackle bullying. It is rolling out one of them, BRAVE, in all the schools in Peterborough. BRAVE stands for bold, resilient, assured, valued, empowered, which is what the council wants local children to be. It will launch the initiative at a conference in Peterborough in January.
	The council is very much involved in anti-bullying week, which begins on 12 November. Its children's services department is sponsoring two key activities in Peterborough schools. In the primary sector it is sponsoring E-ngage, an interactive experience enabling children to explore situations and receive advice and guidance online from a team of experts. In the secondary sector there will be a dramatic workshop with the rather frightening name Silent Screen, involving a performance that children can take back to their schools, develop and adapt to local circumstances. The council is also working with the Cambridgeshire constabulary's safer schools initiative.
	I pay particular tribute to Jack Hunt school, which has a strong anti-bullying policy including a restorative approach project to ensure that children make amends for the bullying and know that bullying is wrong. I also congratulate Peterborough city council in general on its innovative approach to tackling all forms of bullying.
	I echo what Members on both sides have said about children with special educational needs. The bullying of disabled children in particular is deplorable. As was said earlier, in January this year Ofsted published a report on SEN provision in further education. It stated that 18 of the 22 colleges that Ofsted had visited lacked expertise in assessing students' capabilities, which in turn made it difficult to measure their progress. Although learners' achievements on accredited programmes were found to be good, they did not always meet students' stated needs.
	There is a wider context. Dare I say that the issues have been looked at in great detail by the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)? There are some practical issues that we need to grasp in dealing with bullying. We need to end the right of appeal panels to overrule expulsions. That is a vital first step. We want to see an end to the panels second-guessing head teachers' decisions to exclude pupils.
	We must have enforceability of home school contracts. Many schools already have those contracts, which set out in black and white what is expected of the school, the child and the parent, but they must be enforceable and they must be seen as a requirement for admission and a ground for exclusion. Teachers, and head teachers in particular, must have their authority and autonomy restored as a corollary of professional respect.
	We must also protect teachers from spurious allegations. That, too, will bolster their professional respect. That is an important message to send out to pupils and parents. Controversial as it has been, we must look again at the inexorable rise in the number of special schools that are closing. We have all seen this happen over the years: when disabled children or children with special educational needs are put into mainstream schools, some will cope but many will not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said, one child being driven to suicide or to think about suicide is one too many.
	It has been excellent to have an opportunity to talk about these issues, which are extremely important. We have had a constructive debate. There is consensus across the House on dealing with the issue. We welcome the initiatives that the Government have undertaken, including last month's statement. We will support the Government where they are right, as we did on the Education and Inspections Bill, and we will hold them to account where they are wrong. I hope that there will be other occasions when we can discuss these vital issues.

Angela Watkinson: Before I add my brief remarks to this consensual debate, I would like to endorse the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) to young carers. My local police have an awards ceremony once a year for young achievers in the borough, and young carers always feature prominently. Over the years, I have been surprised by how many very young children take on quite extensive responsibilities of caring for dependent parents and for siblings, too. I have never received notification of a bullying case involving a child carer, but the hon. Lady has made me aware of the possibility, so I will be looking to ensure that none of the young carers in my constituency is suffering in that way.
	Bullying is a base negative human instinct which goes back to time immemorial. As I listened to the debate, I recalled how I was bullied by one child when I was in primary school. At the time I did not know whyI had no idea why that particular child had taken such a dislike to me, wanted to hit me and would waylay me on the way home from school. I was not a confrontational sort of child and used to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid that bullying; With hindsight, I see that that probably exacerbated the problem, because I did not face it. Listening to the debate and all the various possible reasons why children are bullied, I think it was probably because I used to be first in the classin those days, every child in the class was ranked. At home, I was expected to be first and if I was not I had to explain why. I can understand now how a child who was not first could have found that extremely irritating. After all these years, I forgive her.
	I also experienced a brief instance of bullying fairly recently. It was perpetrated by an adult, but I am sure he was a bully when he was at school. I was coming down the stairs at West Ham tube station, and I was wearing high-heeled shoes and carrying two heavy bags. Having suffered a serious fall at that station a year or so ago, I am always very wary there, so I was using the handrail. Coming up the stairs, however, was a man wearing flat shoes and carrying nothing in his hands. He just stood and stared at me; then he said, I'm no gentleman, and would not budge. I had to teeter around him to get down the stairs. I think that for some people bullying is a personality thing: if they are bullies at school, it is likely that they will go on to become bullying adults. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we try to find ways of reducing bullying in schools.
	Of course, nowadays there are far more opportunities for bullying and more imaginative ways of doing ittexting, blogging and via websites, for example. The principle, however, is the same age-old one: picking on somebody who is weaker or different in some way and attacking them either physically or psychologically for some sort of personal satisfaction.
	The victims are chosen for all sorts of reasons, some of them inexplicable. The reason can be purely their physical appearance. I remember that, when I was a child, children with red hair were picked on. I do not know whether that persistsfashions change, and I think that nowadays red hair is admired. Back in those days, children might also be picked on and bullied because they were unusually tall or short, or fat or thin, or have a big nose. Clothing has been referred to: if a child wears clothes that are noticeably different from everybody else's, that can be used as a reason for bullying. That is one of the benefits of school uniform. It makes everyone appear the same and eliminates at least one opportunity for bullying or picking on peoplebecause they look different. Other motives for bullying include jealousy of a child who is especially pretty or good looking, or the child belongs to a particular grouphe or she is gay, or Jewish, or a Jehovah's Witness. Children might also be bullied for being particularly cleverthat is often a source of annoyance to other pupils. On the other hand, they might simply be non-confrontational and an easy target, ora subject several Members have referred tohave a speech impediment or a physical difficulty or mobility problem. Children with an impediment who attend mainstream schools are sometimes subjected to bullying because of that.
	I worked in a special school for many years. I concede that it was very small compared with mainstream schools, but bullying was virtually unknown. Students had a wide range of disabilities, including those relating to speech and mobility and those that are not visible, but there was a common thread: they all accepted each other's disabilities without comment, disregarding them as much as possible and carrying on with life.
	One Member referred to the discipline involved in staff members eating with pupils at lunchtime. That was one of the habits in that school: the staff always ate with the pupils. Some of them came from homes where they had not learned to use a knife and fork properly. They did not understand the sharing of food at a table, so it was served in terrines and they learned to make sure that there was enough for everybody. They learned many different types of interpersonal skills that are acquired through social eating, such as the benefits of discussion during a meal, and even of arguing about something without coming to blows, but enjoying differences of opinion. Those social skills are very important, and they all contribute to the elimination of bullying.
	The interesting question is why do young people bully? Why do bullies do it? That is a complex subject, and there are a wide range of possible contributory reasons. They might be very unhappy themselves. The various causes of unhappiness are almost endless. They might have very low self-esteem, which could originate from low achievement in school. They might be bullied at home: some families have a whipping boyone person in the family who is always found to be responsible for everything that goes wrong. They might witness other family members bullying in their homes, so it is a learned habit. Bullying might be the only way in which they can feel that they have any power or control over their own lives.
	There is also the influence of video games. Most young people have access to computers, and from what I have seen, all video games are based on violence and attacking. My grandchildren watch them, as well. I think that the games are perfectly horrid, but they all seem to like them. However, some children could be influenced to the extent of wanting to carry out these acts of violence on other children at school.
	One very difficult thing for schools in dealing with bullying is finding witnesses. The essence of bullying, which is a very cowardly act, is that it is often done when nobody is looking. In fact, the bully usually makes sure that nobody is looking. Schools therefore receive the complaint from either the bullied child or their parents, and then have the extremely difficult problem of investigating and finding out exactly what happened before they can deal with it.
	The schools in my borough, and particularly in my constituency, are extremely good and are of a very high standard; they all have bullying policies in place. I am a governor at two of them, so I know this from personal experience. They also have school councils, even the primary schools. I have been very impressed by the standard of debate and their good meeting habits. The children learn to listen to other people and are taught not always to force their own point of view, to give equal respect to others' points of view, and to discuss possible ways of overcoming problems. School councils make a very good contribution to dealing with bullying, and they can come up with their own ideas. Children often have a very different perspective from adults and, using lateral thinking, may suggest another way to approach a particular case of bullying. There are peer mentoring schemes, even in the primary schools. I have been impressed by the level of common sense and good will in very young children in trying to work together to overcome problems.
	Parents' associations also play a very important role. The greater the level of parental involvement in the life of a school, the better the machinery of school works and the greater the opportunities to deal with bullying and any other problem that comes up in the life of the school.
	We all get cases of bullying referred to us, and I want to refer to one in particular. Typically, we receive a letter from a constituent who is extremely worried about their child, who is being bullied at school. My first question in that situation is, Have you discussed it with the school governors and with the head teacher? Sometimes, they have not, and I will never step in and interfere in the life of the school until due process has been followed. In the case to which I want to refer, the school had a very difficult decision to make. Quite a difficult child from a difficult family background was undoubtedly bullying another child in a violent way. The bullied child's parents wanted the bully to be excluded, but the school was concerned that, if the child was excluded, it would have no control over what was happening outside schoolas we all know, the bullying process does not stop at the school gate. It is very difficult for schools to please everybody in these circumstances.
	The school tried very hard to do the right thing, and the whole school got involved. When the bullied child was persuaded to come back, their peers made sure that they were always escorted during circulation time between lessons and were never left on their own. The school went to endless lengths to overcome the problem, but as I say, it is impossible to please everybody.
	Schools can do their best, and that is the essence of how we will resolve this problemby everybody working together. The pupils, the governors, the parents' association, individual parents, the teachers, the ancillary staff, dinner ladies on duty in the playground, the groundskeeperseverybody needs to work together. Unfortunately, the police are also sometimes involved. Bullying is not a problem that any one group can solve alone. Government, of course, have the role of legislating, but we need to work together to reduce bullying. That will be a long haul, because as quickly as we resolve one method of bullying, no doubt others will emerge.

Kevin Brennan: I know that it is traditional on these occasions to say that we have had a good debate, but that is what we have had. All the contributions have been extremely useful, well-informed, and helpful to me in my role as the Minister responsible not for bullying but for policy on bullying. It would be inappropriate for me to be responsible for bullying, as an ex-member of the Government Whips Office. This has also been a well behaved debate, and I congratulate everybody on that, given the issue that we are discussing.
	I would like to reply to the debate by talking about the contributions initially. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who made a speech from the Conservative Front Bench, spoke about behaviour in our schools and, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), I hope he will join us in the mission to raise the bar on discipline in our schools. I think that he will do so, because I know that he is genuinely concerned about these issues and is sincere in his desire to improve standards in our schools. If we raise the bar and it is consequently difficult to get over it, I hope that he will be straightforward in his assessment of thatI am sure that he will beand acknowledge improving standards where they are occurring. That is always a matter of concern, because it is so easy to take a headline figure and for it to be used in a way that is not entirely consistent with what is happening on the ground, although I know that he would never misrepresent anything. I am sure that he will be fair in that way.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned consistency and the importance of academic standards, in that a lack of quality teaching is potentially a root cause of bullying and has other impacts. Consistency is important in school discipline, as is fairness. Pupils respond well to an orderly, calm environment, as he described, and they also respond well to consistency and fairness. Some of the other contributions acknowledging the importance of involving the pupils themselves in helping to set and agree the standards, through school councils and other methods, was an important feature of the debate.
	I mentioned the social and emotional aspects of learning. Although the hon. Gentleman did not refer to that in his speech, I hope that he will examine some of the research on it, because I understand that he did not initially welcome that specific programme. I sincerely invite him to take a look at it, because it is having an impact and I hope that he will feel able to welcome its further extension in coming years. I thank him for his contribution.
	We heard a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), who spoke with a quiet eloquence and passion about young carers, and managed to range extensively on that subject while keeping perfectly in order in relation to today's topic of bullying. She raised an interesting point about the particular vulnerability of young carers to be the potential victims of bullying. She also mentioned the 200 young carers projects that are in place around the country, and I would be interested to see some of the work that they are undertaking. She rightly pointed out that although 200 may sound like a lot, it does not represent one project in each constituency.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend has been very generous with her invitations to me this afternoon, as I think that that is the second one. I shall certainly look at trying to achieve that, if I can. I will also undertake to do my best to come along in December to meet the young carers at the event that she is hosting in the House and I am sure that other hon. Members will also wish to take her up on that invitation.
	My hon. Friend mentioned young carers and pointed out that it is another form of prejudice-driven bullying, but it is almost prejudice by proxy, in that many of the young carers have disabled parents or relatives, for whom they are helping to care. Her observation on that was astute. This week, I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health describe on Desert Island Discs how he was brought up by his sister after his mother died when he was 12, and that struck me as an example of how young carers can have a major influence on people's lives. His story is even more remarkable as a result of that background.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned her Billthe Carers (Identification and Support) Billand I commend her for the work that she has done on the issue. I will undertake to do my best to come along in December to meet the people from the young carers forum.
	The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats about cyberbullying and how we could do more to ensure that the sites were more responsible. In the forum that we have set up, the companiesincluding some of the large players in the market, and he mentioned one in particularhave indicated their willingness, and we have to hold them to it, to take down offensive material and to ban users who abuse the sites. We also need to approach the issue from the other side and try to educate young people, parents and teachers on how they can make an effective complaint. They can go to the companies and ask them to take down some of the material and identify and deal with the abusers. If appropriate, they can also ensure that the issue is reported to the police and, where necessary, charges are brought. We have a job to do on that issue, and the guidance that we have issued on cyberbullying is an important part of that.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the sending of guidance to all schools on homophobic bullying. I should explain that the homophobic bullying guidance is part of the overall Safe to Learn document. That extensive online document is available for schools to order if they wish to have a hard copy, althoughas the Minister with responsibility for sustainability in the DepartmentI do not want to have a too great an impact on the Amazon rainforest by sending out huge documents that schools do not want if they can be made available online.
	The hon. Gentleman might also have been referring to some further work that has been done by Stonewall and the Anti-Bullying Alliance. I understand that Stonewall is planning to send additional materials to schools in conjunction with the Anti-Bullying Alliance. That is not specifically a departmental initiative, and it is not yet clear what the distribution strategy is.

Kim Howells: May I join the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) in congratulating the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing the debate? I welcome the close interest of the hon. Member for Southend, West in the issues that have been raised. If he does not mind me saying so, it is always a pleasure to debate with him. He believes passionately in the causes that he champions, as does the hon. Member for Northampton, South. I do not always agree with the hon. Gentlemen, but I recognise the force of their arguments.
	I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the debate on relations between the United Kingdom and the Maldives. Mention of the Maldives will readily evoke images of picture-postcard islands and crystal-clear water. We have heard such a description today. I have not had the opportunity to visit the country, but, hopefully, I will do so one day. I cannot remember whether this was mentioned, but 100,000 British citizens go there for a holiday every year, which in itself is a testament to not only the beauty of the islands, but their potential, which was the most interesting aspect of the hon. Gentlemen's speeches.
	We enjoy excellent relationships with the Maldives, both bilaterally and through our shared membership of the Commonwealth. Many Maldivians hold Her Majesty the Queen and the United Kingdom in high regard. That is reflected at ministerial level, and through the close relationships between Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the Maldivian Government.
	In his visit in July, President Gayoom had an audience with the Queen. He also met my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown, the Minister with responsibility for Africa, Asia and the United Nations, at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They reviewed our wide range of shared interests, which include education, trade, tourism and addressing the challenges of climate change. More recently, senior FCO officials met the new Maldivian Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdulla Shahid, and the Deputy Foreign Minister, Ms Dhunya Maumoon, who was educated in Britain. She is the daughter of the President and is married to a British national. Officials also met Mohamed Nasheed, who is the leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic party.
	I was interested in the suggestion that the hon. Member for Northampton, South, made about establishing closer contacts with UK universities; I could not agree with him more. We do not work hard enough at that. I will give him an undertaking: tomorrow night, I will have the pleasure of dining with the distinguished Professor Merfyn Jones, who is chairman of Higher Education Wales, which represents Welsh universities. I shall mention the subject to him, because he has done some pioneering work on contacts between Bangor university, of which he is the vice-chancellor, and Kuwait. Work is done on important maritime studies, and I have no doubt that issues such as climate change could easily be included.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West, mentioned that the Maldivians are extremely concerned about climate change, and he gave us the most vivid example possible. While I was swotting for the debate, I read that no point in the Maldives is higher than 2.5 m. When we read some of the predictions of what will happen if sea levels rise, we see that climate change poses the gravest threat to life and commerce in the Maldives. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the subject, and we want to work with him on it.
	When I made inquiries with our officials, they said, Look, as for contact between the Maldivians and us, we are no more than a phone call away. We have a very good relationship with the Maldivians, and it is not at a formal level. If they want to speak to us, they can do so at any time. I wanted to reiterate that in the House tonight, because it is an important point. We care a great deal about the Maldives. It has a very small population of 350,000, but as the hon. Member for Southend, West, pointed out, it has strong historical links with our country, and we want to nurture and strengthen those links.
	I was fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman's description of the new town that is set to grow, possibly with a causeway connection to the capital, Mal. That is an exciting prospect. The hon. Gentleman probably already knows, although I admit that I do not, whether the Maldivians are looking closely at the new developments in the Gulf, where causeways are being used to enlarge the available building land. He made an important point when he said that it is easy to run out of land. We may be talking about the biggest occupied atoll in the world, but that does not mean that there is a lot of land there for development. Clearly, we are talking about a country with aspirationsI will come to the points that the hon. Member for Northampton, South, made on that subject later. It aspires not just to become a more transparent and vigorous democracy, although I believe that it is that, but to feed itself and to ensure a sustainable economy. As the tourism industry grows, so will the population, probablyand why should it not? However, it will be a fine balance, because there is not much room. From our own constituencies, we all know how difficult it is to get land for development, even though we have such an abundance of it. For the Maldives, the problem is acute.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen and the entire House will join me in condemning the appalling bomb attack on 29 September that injured 12 tourists, including two British nationals. We offer our sincere condolences to those injured, some of whom are still recuperating from the attack. The bombers, whoever they were, do not represent the overwhelming majority of the Maldivian people, who reacted with horror to the attack. Their reaction was not only of great comfort to the victims, but sent an unambiguous message to the perpetrators that the Maldives is united against terrorism. My noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown wrote to Foreign Minister Shahid on 4 October to express our gratitude for the generous and effective response of the Maldivian Government, the tourism industry and the Maldivian general public for their expressions of opposition to that outrage.
	I join the hon. Member for Southend, West in saying that that attack did not represent the Maldives. Perhaps it was designed to try to weaken confidence in the Maldives and to tell people that they should not go there. We have seen the same tactics being used in Sharm el-Shaikh and elsewhere. I have been impressed by the determination of the Maldivian people in re-asserting that that is a country worth living in and one which has a great future.
	I echo the words of the hon. Member for Northampton, Southif it was the hon. Member for Southend, West, I hope he will forgive mewho paid tribute to the work of the noble Lord Naseby, whom we know well. He has done sterling work in helping our Government and the House to focus on helping the Maldives to achieve a more democratic and transparent system of government. That has been a remarkable achievement. As the hon. Member for Northampton, South told us, the transition has not been easy and there is a long way to go yet, but we appreciate the fact that President Gayoom has set in train an ambitious reform programme to adopt a new constitution and to institute multi-party democracy.
	We should not underestimate the challenges in attempting to make the transition from a political system that was based heavily on patronage and state control to a multi-party liberal democracy in the space of just a few years. In some areas, such as freedom of expression and the media, the formation of political parties and the development of civil society, there has been good, albeit not always consistent, progress. We would like to see more movement in other areas. I understand that the new constitution is well on its way to being finished. I heard today that 13 chapters had been written. It is being put together by a constituent assembly, and the United Nations Development Programme has provided assistance in the drafting. That is encouraging news.
	In August the Maldives constitutional referendum was the first national poll since the creation of political parties. The hon. Member for Southend, West asked whether we could send election observers out there. We would like to do that, but whether we can is another matter. It is an important issue. We would certainly support full Commonwealth or European Union election observation missions and British participation in those missions to observe what promises to be the first multi-party elections next year.
	I am told, and the hon. Gentlemen have confirmed to me tonight, that because of the nature of Maldivian geography, with hundreds of small islandsI think that more than 200 are inhabitedan international observation team would not be able to cover the entire country. It is at least as important that there should be sufficient domestic observers, through the Maldives human rights commission and the political parties. I very much hope that we can take that forward.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at half-past Seven o'clock
	Correction
	 Official Report, 15 October 2007: In col. 625, after Dobson, rh Frank insert Donohoe, Mr. Brian H.